-V 

■  fPL-  **>&■'  /fr,>-  '^3,;v  :-,  *•'  .  ..v;--..1-  ••  .'  •  '  '  ■.  •  .  ' 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


By 

ERNEST  GORDON 


“We  trust  the  Unitarian  doctrine  and  practice  to  leaven 
the  inert  mass  of  archaic  religious  opinion.  The  pene¬ 
tration  has  been  accomplished  and  the  leaven  has  worked 
wonderfully.” — Twentieth  Century  Christianity,  Charles 
W.  Eliot. 

“Also  of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise  speaking 
perverse  things  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them.” — 
Acts  20:30. 


BOSTON  C&lhlim  LIJ35AET 
CHESTNUT  KILE,  MAKS. 


Chicago 

THE  BIBLE  INSTITUTE  COLPORTAGE  ASS’N 
843-845  North  Wells  Street 


Copyright,  1926,  by 

Ernest  Gordon 


Erin  ted  in  the  United 


States  of  America 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I.  The  Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England  -  -  7 

The  “capture”  of  the  churches  from  Puritanism.  The  reac¬ 
tion  from  Unitarianism  to  Episcopalianism.  Dr.  F.  D.  Hunt¬ 
ington.  The  statement  of  an  ex-Unitarian,  F.  S.  Child. 

CHAPTER  II.  Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  -  21 

The  rise  of  Christian  missions  in  New  England  contempo¬ 
raneous  with  the  Unitarian  apostasy.  The  Unitarian  mission 
in  Japan  and  its  collapse.  The  failure  of  the  Harvard  mission 
in  China.  Drs.  Sunderland  and  Bacon  on  the  inability  of 
Unitarianism  to  initiate  missions  and  the  reason.  Depreciation 
of  Christian  missions  by  Drs.  Johnson,  Eliot,  and  Peabody. 
Unitarian  missions  to  evangelical  heathen  at  Chautauqua,  in 
State  universities,  and  among  Lutheran  Scandinavians. 

CHAPTER  III.  The  Good  Works  of  Unitarianism  -  -  -  -  3 6 

Unitarian  accomplishment  in  philanthropy  and  good  citizen¬ 
ship.  The  evangelical  roots  in  Unitarian  personalities  and 
philanthropies.  The  Unitarian  families  in  Boston  and  their 
great  wealth.  The  extent  of  Unitarian  giving  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  Christian  churches.  Unitarian  contributions 
to  educational  pioneering  slight.  The  “capture”  of  Antioch 
college.  The  moral  character  of  Harvard  and  its  graduates 
according  to  Harvard  testimony.  Unitarian  neglect  of  Negro 
and  Indian.  The  slavery  issue  and  Unitarianism.  How  Uni¬ 
tarianism  has  blocked  the  movement  against  alcohol. 

CHAPTER  IV.  Unitarian  Scepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  66 

An  examination  of  Unitarian  literature.  Emerton,  Chad¬ 
wick,  Dole,  Eliot.  Its  anti-Christian  character.  The  official 
publications  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association.  The  drift 
into  atheism.  Dr.  Dietrich  and  other  “humanists.”  Attempts 
of  President  Eliot  to  break  the  way  for  Unitarianism  into  the 
Federal  Council  of  Churches.  Unitarianism  in  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Federation  of  Churches  and  the  resulting  paralysis.  The 
drive  to  break  down  the  evangelical  tests  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
and  Y.  W.  C.  A.  and  to  admit  Unitarians  to  their  management. 
Unitarian  denunciation  of  these  Christian  tests.  The  Unitarian 
plan  of  leavening  Christian  churches  and  institutions  as  stated 
by  themselves.  Boring  from  within.  The  testimony  of  Slaten. 
Staying  in  evangelical  pulpits  and  “capturing”  them  for  Uni¬ 
tarianism. 


3 


4 


Contents 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  V.  The  Religious  Education  Association  -  -  -  -  101 

The  Religious  Education  Association  and  Unitarianism. 
Permeating  the  Bible  Instruction  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  Y.  W. 

C.  A.  “Capturing”  the  International  Sunday  School  Associa¬ 
tion.  “Capturing”  Chautauqua.  Permeating  the  hymnbooks. 
“Capturing”  the  Bible  chairs  in  the  colleges.  C.  F.  Kent  and 
his  anti-Christian  Life  and  Teachings  of  Jesus.  Wild  of  Mt. 
Holyoke.  Agnosticism  at  Wellesley.  The  situation  at  Smith, 
Bryn  Mawr,  Vassar.  Fowler  of  Brown  and  Peritz  of  Syracuse. 

The  modernist  drive  at  the  state  universities.  Schools  of  Re¬ 
ligion.  Essential  Unitarianism  as  a  state  religion.  The 
work  of  the  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education  in  pro¬ 
moting  this  movement.  Inter-denominational  university  pas¬ 
torates.  Modernist  literature  in  school,  college  and  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
libraries.  Training  of  modernist  instructors  and  directors  of 
religious  education.  Other  intrigues. 

CHAPTER  YI.  The  Looting  of  Andover  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -138 

The  perversion  of  the  Hollis  professorship  at  Harvard  to 
Unitarianism  in.  1805.  The  founding  of  Andover  as  an  evan¬ 
gelical  seminary  to  take  its  place.  Safeguarding  the  endow¬ 
ments  from  Unitarianism.  The  Andover  creed  and  the  Board 
of  Visitors.  The  great  evangelical  history  of  Andover.  The 
five  professors  break  down  the  creed.  Their  trial.  The  decline 
of  Andover  under  modernist  control.  The  affiliation  with  Har¬ 
vard  and  final  merging  with  the  Unitarian  school  and  de¬ 
struction  of  Andover’s  identity.  The  hypocrisy  of  Harvard 
“non-sectarianism.”  Unitarian  taunt  songs  on  the  end  of 
Andover.  Affiliation  of  Newton  Theological  Institution  and  the 
Boston  University  School  of  Theology  with  Harvard  Theolog¬ 
ical  School.  The  significance  and  dangers  of  these  affiliations. 

CHAPTER  VII.  The  Apostate  Seminaries  -------  159 

The  early  history  of  Union  and  its  evangelical  usefulness. 

Its  perversion.  President  McGiffert  questions  the  future  life. 
Non-theistic  modernism.  Lyman  on  “democratic  theism.” 
Fagnani  on  “indispensible  faith  in  ourselves.”  Ross  and  the 
worship  of  Kwannon.  “Conversion  by  convulsion.”  Coe’s 
psychological  explanations  of  Christian  experiences.  Scott  and 
the  Gospel  of  John.  W.  A.  Brown  and  Spinozaism.  Union 
students.  How  the  Baptists  sacrificed  to  provide  endowment 
for  Chicago  University.  Morgan  Park  Seminary  turned  over  to 
this  University.  The  Unitarianizing  of  this  seminary.  Evan¬ 
gelical  Baptists  told  to  begin  over  again  and  found  their  own 
school.  Blind  guides  to  A  Study  of  the  Christian  Religion — 
Mathews,  Case,  Smith,  Soares.  The  Finality  of  the  Christian 
Religion  by  a  Baptist  free-thinker.  Ames’  psychological  theo¬ 
rizing.  Proposals  to  standardize  the  ministry  by  law  if  neces¬ 
sary.  Barring  Bible  school  scabs.  Newton’s  theological  toxi¬ 
cology.  Unbelief  at  Rochester.  Cross’s  Creative  Christianity. 
Rauschenbusch  would  democratize  God.  Starratt  of  Colgate. 

The  Methodist  reading  courses  and  modernism.  CrozePs 


Contents 


5 


PAGE 

apostasy.  Beckwith’s  “Idea  of  God.”  How  near  can  one  go 
to  atheism  without  being  an  atheist?  Youtz  and  Hutchins  of 
Oberlin.  The  beauties  of  Baal  worship.  Prof.  Lake:  “God 
is  the  unborn  life  of  the  world  that  is  yet  to  be.”  The  Metho¬ 
dist  seminaries.  Student  notes  from  modernist  lectures. 

CHAPTER  VIII.  Modernist  Antiques,  or  The  Old  and  the 
New  Enlightenment  -  --  --  --  --  --  --  -  21(2 

Modern  criticism  and  modern  theology  a  recrudesence  of 
that  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Parallels  between  eighteenth 
century  deists  and  present  day  modernists.  Dr.  Fosdick  and 
Tom  Paine  in  parallel.  Evangelical  neo-Straussians.  The  simi¬ 
larity  in  attitude,  style  and  phrasing  between  the  older  and  the 
present  unbelief.  The  tactics  of  eighteenth  century  unbelief 
as  well  as  its  theology  borrowed  from  the  past.  “Capturing” 
the  divinity  faculties  and  the  pulpits.  Stealing  endowments. 
Disregarding  creedal  obligations,  modernizing  liturgies,  muti¬ 
lating  evangelical  hymns.  Shorter  Bibles  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  Emasculating  the  ritual  of  the  Methodist  church.  The 
victory  of  eighteenth  century  modernism  over  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Death  of  religion.  Persecution  of  evangelicals  in 
Scandinavia,  Holland,  Germany  and  Scotland  by  the  modern¬ 
ists.  The  collapse  of  morality  following  the  triumph  of  un¬ 
belief.  The  evangelical  revival,  Hauge  in  Norway,  the 
Haldanes  in  Scotland,  Beck  in  Denmark,  Schartau  in  Sweden. 

The  Reve'il  in  France  and  Switzerland.  The  restoration  of 
Christianity  in  Germany.  The  awakening  of  philanthropy 
which  followed — Wilberforce,  Shaftesbury,  Fliedner,  Wichern, 

Bost,  Grundtvig,  Bodelschwingh.  Modern  evangelical  missions. 

Appendix  -  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  258 

Ford  Hall  Forum.  The  Andover  Decision  of  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Supreme  Court  (Extracts).  The  Fellowship  for 
Christian  Life  Service.  The  Board  of  Missionary  Preparation 
a  Modernist’s  Sinecure. 


Note:  Throughout  this  book  “C.R.”  stands  for 
Christian  Register  (the  Unitarian  organ) ;  “R.E.”  for 
Religious  Education,  organ  o£  the  Religious  Education 
Association,  and  “C.E.”  for  Christian  Education, 
organ  of  the  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of  Education. 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  UNITARIAN  DEFECTION  IN 
NEW  ENGLAND 

"^NITARIANISM  was  not  so  much  a  secession  from 
the  church  of  New  England  as  an  apostasy  from 
Christ.  “It  did  not  set  out  primarily  to  create  a 
church,”  says  Dr.  E.  A.  Horton.  “It  had  one  and  it  kept  pos¬ 
session  of  the  majority  of  meeting-houses  in  this  vicinity.”1  It 
was  the  Puritan  party,  the  lawful  heir  of  the  great  traditions 
of  New  England,  that  had  to  go,  leaving  all  behind.  A  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Association  in  1836  re¬ 
corded  in  a  careful  report  eighty-one  cases  of  ecclesiastical 
division.  Three  thousand  nine  hundred  evangelical  members 
withdrew.  The  property  which  fell  to  the  twelve  hundred 
and  eighty- two  Unitarians  who  took  possession  of  the  churches 
amounted  to  more  than  $600,000,  a  sum  representing  many 
times  that  amount  today.  Many  churches  went  over  en  masse , 
taking  buildings  and  endowments  with  them.  This  was  the 
case  with  twelve  of  the  fourteen  churches  in  Boston.2 

This  alienation  of  property  was  made  possible  by  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  churches  to  the  parishes  in  which  they  were  situ¬ 
ated.  The  town  contributed  to  the  support  of  the  church  and 
was  consequently  given  rights  in  the  choice  of  pastors.  When 
the  Unitarian  crisis  came,  town  out-siders,  by  uniting  with 
a  minority  inside  the  church,  were  often  able  to  out-vote  the 
majority  of  church  members.  So,  in  the  picturesque  phrase 
of  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  they  “grafted  heretical  churches  on 
orthodox  stumps.”  “This  is  their  favorite  plan,”  he  continues, 
“When  the  minister  dies,  some  society's  committee  will  be  cut 
and  dried,  ready  to  call  in  a  Cambridge  student,  split  the 


7 


8  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

church,  get  a  majority  of  the  society  and  take  house,  funds, 
and  all.”3 

Two  or  three  cases  will  illustrate  the  procedure  followed. 

In  the  town  of  Groton  there  was  a  Congregational  church 
with  a  fund  of  $11,000  for  the  support  of  its  ministry.  The 
pastor,  Dr.  Chaplin,  falling  ill,  the  town  appointed  a  commit¬ 
tee  to  arrange  a  supply.  This  committee  brought  in  a  Unita¬ 
rian  minister  from  Boston,  against  the  protest  of  the  pastor  and  a 
majority  of  church  members.  In  spite  of  this  protest  it  insisted 
on  its  right  of  control  and  declared  that  “it  would  not  be  re¬ 
sponsible  for  consequences  which  should  follow  in  the  course 
of  a  just,  legal,  and  firm  opposition.”  Dr.  Chaplin  and  his  peo¬ 
ple,  in  consequence  of  this  threat  of  forcible  resistance,  ceased 
attending  church.  Written  requests  for  its  use  were  repeatedly 
refused.  A  church  council,  called  to  consider  the  situation, 
after  defining  the  rights  of  a  Congregational  church  as  a  cor¬ 
poration,  concludes  with, 

“If  we  know  our  hearts,  we  do  not  wish  to  contend  from 
party  feeling  or  for  worldly  victory,  but  believing  the  Bible 
to  be  literally  and  fully  the  Word  of  God  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  and  His  blood  can  alone  redeem  the  soul  from  death, 
we  cannot  in  conscience  sit  under  Unitarian  preaching,  nor  can 
we  be  willing  to  die  and  leave  to  our  children  such  an  inherit¬ 
ance.” 

So  they  went  out  preferring  the  reproach  of  Christ  to  the 
woodlots  and  bank  accounts  and  glebe  lands  of  Groton.4 

A  more  famous  case  because  of  legal  decisions  was  that  of 
the  First  Parish  church  of  Dedham.  The  large  majority  of 
the  church  members  were  evangelical,  but  the  parish,  in  spite 
of  protests,  forced  on  the  church  a  Unitarian  minister  and  in¬ 
vited  an  outside  Unitarian  council  to  ordain  him.5  In  the  coun¬ 
cil  were  Drs.  Channing  and  Ware,  President  Kirkland  of  Har¬ 
vard,  and  other  Unitarian  notables,  who  decided  that  a  min¬ 
ister  may  be  ordained  over  a  parish  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  church.  Thereupon  the  majority  withdrew.  Suit  was 
instituted  for  control  of  property.  The  court  ruled  that  under 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England 


9 


a  provision  of  the  bill  of  rights  of  1780  the  parish  was  justi¬ 
fied  in  electing  a  minister  without  consent  of  the  church:  that 
a  church  had  no  legal  existence  apart  from  the  parish  and  that 
the  property  of  the  church  should  go  to  that  minority  of  the 
church  which  had  associated  itself  with  the  action  of  the  par¬ 
ish.6  By  the  aid  of  this  far-reaching  decision  of  Chief  Justice 
Parker  (March,  1821)  Unitarians  were  enabled  to  get  pos¬ 
session  of  the  churches  of  Eastern  Massachusetts  and  those 
who  remained  loyal  to  the  Puritan  faith  for  which  the  churches 
had  been  established  and  endowed  were  reduced  to  the  status 
of  dissenters. 

“It  cannot  be  believed,”  says  the  historian  of  the  town,  “that 
the  inhabitants  of  Dedham  in  1659  who  made  such  exertion 
to  establish  a  pure  church  .  .  .  and  who  would  not  permit 
the  town  to  have  any  participation  in  the  choice  of  their  two 
first  pastors,  could  ever  have  consented  to  such  a  method  of 
controlling  their  funds  .  .  .  one  which  virtually  gives  the  par¬ 
ish  the  power  of  controlling  them  in  exclusion  of  the  church. 

“Of  all  heresies  they  probably  would  have  deemed  that  the 
greatest  which  would  place  the  funds  given  by  them  under  the 
control  of  a  Unitarian  parish  to  the  exclusion  of  an  orthodox 
church,  as  has  been  done.” 

Mr.  Worthington,  after  this  acknowledgment,  says  of  this 
action:  “It  must  be  ]ustified  on  revolutionary  and  not  on  legal 
principles It  was  “rendered  necessary  by  a  change  of  opin¬ 
ions."1  Dr.  Ellis,  the  historian  of  the  Unitarian  controversy, 
makes  a  similar  defense.  If  the  courts  had  decided  otherwise 
“acres  of  territory  and  heaps  of  funded  wealth,  the  lawful 
inheritance  of  new  generations  unfettered  by  conditions  of 
creed,  would  have  been  pledged  to  obsolete  terms  and  disbe¬ 
lieved  doctrine,”8  disbelieved,  be  it  understood,  not  by  the 
majority  of  the  church  members  but  by  those  outside  church 
walls. 

Dr.  Abiel  Holmes  [the  father  of  Dr.  O.  W.  Holmes  in 
whose  biography  is  to  be  seen  his  fine  Miltonic  face]  was 
the  honored  Puritan  minister  of  the  First  Parish  church, 


10 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Cambridge.  For  thirty-eight  years  he  had  preached  and  led  the 
church  in  the  Christian  life,  cared  for  the  poor,  instructed  the 
children,  founded  libraries  for  the  parish  and  engaged  in  all 
good  works.  When  Unitarianism  became  rife  he  discontinued 
exchange  with  certain  ministers  of  this  point  of  view.  A 
memorial  was  drawn  up  by  sixty-three  members  of  the  parish 
remonstrating.  Attempts  from  the  same  quarter  were  made 
to  secure  a  Unitarian  colleague  for  the  pastor.  The  majority 
of  the  church  members  supported  Dr.  Holmes  in  his  refusal. 

The  parish  then  called  (May,  1829)  an  ex  parte  council 
composed  of  representatives  of  six  Unitarian  churches  and  voted, 
“that  the  First  Church  of  Cambridge  has  sufficient  cause  to 
terminate  the  contract  subsisting  between  them  and  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Holmes  as  their  minister  and  this  council  recommend  this 
measure  as  necessary  to  the  existence  and  spiritual  prosperity 
of  the  society.” 

The  parish,  confirmed  by  this  backing,  accepted  this  “result” 
and  voted  that  “the  Rev.  Abiel  Holmes  be  and  he  hereby  is 
dismissed  from  his  office  of  minister  of  the  Gospel  and  teacher 
of  piety,  religion,  and  morality  in  said  parish  and  that  all  con¬ 
nection  between  said  Holmes  as  such  minister  or  teacher  and 
said  parish  do  and  shall  henceforth  cease.”  But  a  grant  was 
made  of  three  months  salary  “to  said  Holmes  on  equitable 
principles  but  not  as  legal  right.” 

This  discarded  friend  of  thirty-eight  years  was  informed  by 
the  committee  that  they  “have  employed  a  preacher  to  supply 
the  pulpit  in  the  meeting  house  of  the  First  Parish  in  Cam¬ 
bridge  on  the  next  ensuing  Sabbath  .  .  .  and  that  your  services 
will  not  be  required  or  authorized  in  the  public  religious  services 
in  the  meeting  house  in  said  parish  hereafter.” 

The  congregation  and  pastor  set  on  the  sidewalk  in  this 
brutal  fashion  borrowed  the  court-house  for  services,  Dr. 
Holmes  preaching  from  the  text,  “Think  it  not  strange  con¬ 
cerning  the  fiery  trial  which  is  to  try  you.”  Two-thirds  of  the 
members  followed  their  pastor  in  the  organization  of  a  new 
church,  the  Shepard  Memorial,  which  now  stands  on  the  west 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England  11 

side  of  Cambridge  common.  The  Unitarian  minority  was  not 
satisfied  with  taking  the  church  building  but  demanded  of  the 
church  its  church  fund,  poor  fund,  communion  service,  bap¬ 
tismal  basin,  church  records,  church  library,  etc.,  and  when 
these  were  refused  sued  for  them  and  obtained  them.  The 
actual  money  which  the  church  was  obliged  to  surrender  was 
$4,000.  This  church  fund  had  been  gathered  in  contributions 
at  the  Lord’s  Supper.  The  church  plate  had  also  been  pur¬ 
chased  wholly  by  church  contributions,  the  parish  having  had 
no  part  in  the  gift.9 

It  is  worth  noting  that  no  offer  was  made  to  divide  the  prop¬ 
erty  which  a  very  questionable  court  decision  had  enabled  Uni¬ 
tarians  to  lay  hands  on.  Nor  as  far  as  I  can  ascertain  was  this 
done  in  other  cases  by  the  triumphant  party. 

When  a  generation  had  passed  a  writer,  apparently  Professor 
Stuart  of  Andover,  described  in  a  compact  paragraph  the  injus¬ 
tice  to  which  the  Congregational  churches  had  been  subjected 
by  the  liberalism  of  the  day.  The  smart  of  this  injustice  was 
still  clearly  felt. 

“In  the  progress  of  this  separation  [of  orthodoxy  and  Uni- 
tarianism]  some  forty  years  ago,  it  sometimes  happened  that  a 
church  and  a  parish  which  had  long  co-operated  in  the  support 
of  public  worship  could  agree  to  do  so  no  longer.  The  parish 
would  call  a  Unitarian  minister,  the  church  by  large  majority 
would  refuse  to  concur.  The  parish  unwilling  to  recede  from 
its  vote  would  go  on  and  settle  the  Unitarian  minister  and  the 
church  in  regular  church  meeting  and  by  a  strong  major  vote 
would  decide  to  withdraw  from  the  parish.  They  claimed  the 
right  as  a  distinct  and  independent  body  and  a  quasi-corporate 
body  to  withdraw  and  to  carry  the  records  and  their  property 
with  them;  expecting,  of  course,  to  leave  all  parish  property 
behind. 

“But  the  parishes  thus  left  were  not  content  with  holding 
their  own  property;  they  claimed  also  the  property  of  the 
church.  They  sued  for  it  and  in  repeated  instances  recovered 
it.  The  ground  taken  by  the  courts,  in  opposition  to  all  reason 


12 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


and  Scripture,  to  precedents  and  history,  was  that  a  Congrega¬ 
tional  church  is  a  mere  appendage  of  the  parish ;  that  it  cannot 
exist  separate  from  the  parish;  that  it  may  think  to  withdraw 
and  retain  its  property  but  it  cannot  do  so ;  that  the  few  church 
members  which  remain  are  legally  the  church;  or  if  none 
remain  the  parish,  may  proceed  and  gather  a  church  which 
shall  succeed  to  all  the  rights  of  the  property  of  the  seceding 
body. 

“Such  was  the  ground  of  these  decisions  and  on  this  ground 
church  after  church  was  plundered  of  its  property  even  to  its 
communion  furniture  and  records.  We  called  this  proceeding 
plunder  thirty  years  ago.  We  call  it  by  the  same  hard  name 
now.  And  we  solemnly  call  upon  those  Unitarian  churches 
which  are  still  in  possession  of  this  plunder  to  restore  it.  They 
cannot  prosper  with  it.  And  we  call  upon  the  courts  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  to  revoke  these  unrighteous  decisions  and  put  the  Con¬ 
gregational  churches  of  the  state  upon  their  original  and  proper 
basis.” 10  * 

*1  know  of  no  attempt  ever  made  to  filch  Unitarian  church  property 
from  its  owners.  I  judge  therefore  that  it  was  merely  an  uneasy  con¬ 
science,  recalling  these  early  nineteenth  century  confiscations,  which 
dictated  the  following  circular.  The  policy  outlined  has  been  acted  on 
and  Unitarian  church  property  is  now  quite  generally  protected  in 
this  way. 

The  Protection  of  the  Property  of  Unitarian  Churches 
(Circular  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association) 

“It  will  surely  be  agreed  by  all  loyal  Unitarians  that  a  church 
property  created  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  past  generations  or  by  the  energy 
or  devotion  of  the  present  generation  should  not  be  seriously  diverted 
from  its  original  or  present  purpose  except  by  the  natural  process  of 
evolution  or  progressive  change.  At  present  our  churches  are  not  thus 
protected  against  capture  for  adverse  or  secular  uses.”  It  is  therefore 
proposed  “that  each  Unitarian  society  wishing  to  preserve  its  property 
for  Unitarian  purposes  give  to  the  American  Unitarian  Association  a 
trust  deed  for  the  property.  .  .  .  The  trust  clause  of  the  deed  will  pro¬ 
vide  that  in  case  the  society  ceases  to  be  a  Unitarian  church  the  Asso¬ 
ciation  may  assume  full  control  of  all  the  property  and  improvements.” 

The  children  of  this  world  are  wiser  than  the  children  of  light! 

It  may  be  added  that  the  Unitarianism  of  the  early  nineteenth  century 
took  care  to  guard  its  grip  on  the  college  which  it  had  taken  over  from 
Puritanism.  To  this  end  it  secured  from  the  legislature  repeated  alter¬ 
ations  in  the  constitution  of  the  board  of  overseers.  This  board  con- 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England 


13 


So  it  came  about  that  in  Boston  and  other  towns  of  Eastern 
Massachusetts,  as  Mrs.  Stowe  has  written  in  a  well-known 
passage,  orthodoxy  became  a  “despised  and  persecuted  form  of 
faith.  It  was  the  dethroned  royal  family  wandering  like  a 
permitted  mendicant  in  the  city  where  it  once  had  held  court 
and  Unitarianism  reigned  in  its  stead.”  But  though  the  churches 
of  Boston  had  passed  over  to  a  more  or  less  pronounced  unbe¬ 
lief,  large  portions  of  their  membership  were  not  satisfied  after 
the  excitement  had  died  down  and  the  time  of  reflection  had 
come. 

Of  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  who  had  come  to  Boston  to  rally 
the  evangelical  loyalists,  his  daughter  writes,  “He  had  not  been 
in  Boston  many  weeks  before  every  leisure  hour  was  beset  by 

sisted  originally  of  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  chancellors  and 
senators  of  the  commonwealth  with  the  ministers  of  the  Congregational 
churches  in  Boston  and  outlying  towns.  But  as  a  body  constituted  after 
this  manner  was  liable  to  continual  change  and  Unitarians  might  not 
long  constitute  a  majority,  an  alteration  was  in  due  time  proposed  and 
effected.  An  act  in  1810  prepared  by  Chief  Justice  Parsons  provided 
that  the  board  should  consist  of  president  of  the  senate,  speaker  of  the 
house  and  an  elective  body  of  fifteen  clergy  and  fifteen  laymen  with 
power  to  fill  their  own  ‘vacancies.  By  this  arrangement  Unitarians  were 
able  to  perpetuate  their  control.  The  legislature  in  1812  restored  the  old 
arrangement  but  that  of  1814  revived  the  act  of  1810. 

Dr.  Griffith,  the  Congregational  pastor  of  Park  Street  church,  was 
constitutionally  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Overseers.  But  no  notice  of 
time  or  place  of  meeting  was  ever  sent  him.  At  length  he  took  his  seat. 
His  claim  was  disputed  and  a  committee  was  set  to  consider  the  case. 
A  majority  voted  in  his  favor  but  the  law  of  1814  was  whipped  through 
the  legislature  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  him.  (The  Spirit  of  Religion, 
1829:  478,  quoted  in  Eddy,  The  Unitarian  Apostasy.) 

How  consistently  Unitarians  boycotted  others  than  those  of  their  con¬ 
nection  in  the  management  of  Harvard  comes  out  in  a  Report  on  Filling 
Up  Vacancies  in  the  Clerical  Part  of  the  Permanent  Board  of  Overseers 
of  Harvard  College,  6:  “Between  the  years  1810  and  1843,”  it  says, 
“while  elections  were  confined  to  the  Congregational  denomination 
fifteen  clergymen  have  been  elected,  fourteen  from  that  part  of  the 
denomination  known  as  Unitarians.  Although  the  nomination  lists  have 
never  been  without  other  candidates  there  has  been  but  one  instance 
during  a  period  of  upwards  of  thirty  years  of  a  selection  being  made 
from  the  Orthodox  part  of  the  Congregational  body.” 

In  1852  every  member  of  the  Corporation  was  a  Unitarian.  More 
than  half  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Overseers  were  Unitarians.  On 
the  Board  of  Overseers  were  ten  ministers — eight  Unitarian.  Of  the 
thirteen  members  of  the  faculty  eleven  were  Unitarian,  one  a  Quaker 
and  one  without  church  connection. — Eliot,  The  One  Hundredth  Anni¬ 
versary  of  the  Harvard  Divinity  School,  34. 


14  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

people  who  came  with  earnest  intention  to  express  to  him  those 
various  phases  of  weary,  restless,  wandering  desire  and  aspira¬ 
tion  proper  to  an  earnest  people  whose  traditional  faith  had 
been  broken  up  but  who  have  not  outlived  the  necessity  of 
definite  and  settled  belief.  From  minds  of  every  class  in  every 
circle  of  society,  the  most  fashionable  and  the  most  obscure, 
these  inquirers  were  constantly  coming  with  every  imaginable 
theological  problem  from  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  out 
through  all  the  minutest  ramifications  of  doctrinal  opinion  or 
personal  religious  experience.”11 

Early  Unitarianism  in  its  right  wing  was  much  nearer  to 
evangelical  Christianity  than  one  would  imagine  who  knows  it 
in  its  modern  phases  alone.  Emerson  wrote  of  old  Dr.  Ezra 
Ripley  of  Concord  [who  indeed  could  say  of  himself,  “I  am  not 
sensible  of  having  departed  in  any  degree  from  the  doctrines 
properly  called  the  doctrines  of  grace”],  “He  seemed  in  his 
constitutional  leaning  to  their  religion  one  of  the  rear-guard 
of  the  great  camp  and  army  of  the  Puritans.”  And  there  were 
many  such.  Emerson’s  own  father  could  declare,  “This  doc¬ 
trine  of  human  depravity,  whose  truth  is  sanctioned  by  univer¬ 
sal  observation  and  experience  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
revelation  and  he  who  preaches  it  preaches  Jesus  Christ  and 
Him  crucified.  For  this  purpose  was  the  Son  of  God  manifested 
that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.  By  his  sufferings 
and  death  He  proves  the  inherent  and  unchanging  mercy  of 
God,  moves  sinful  men  to  penitence  and  reformation  and  thence 
expiates  their  guilt  and  procures  them  pardon  of  sin.  He  vol¬ 
untarily  laid  down  his  life,  took  it  again  and  broke  the  prison 
of  the  grave,  thence  becoming  the  first  fruits  of  them  that 
slept.” 

Hezekiah  Packard  in  his  last  days  declared :  “I  have  nothing 
but  Christ  to  trust  to  and  hope  to  be  clothed  with  my  Saviour’s 
righteousness.”  When  asked  if  he  feared  death  his  reply  was, 
“I  do  not  think  much  of  the  King  of  Terrors;  my  thoughts 
are  on  the  King  of  Glory,”  and  his  last  whispers  were  of 
“Rock,”  “Redeemer,”  “Shepherd.”  The  Rev.  W.  B.  O. 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England  15 

Peabody  had  his  Bible  training  courses  which  he  led  from  an 
interleaved  Bible.  “His  preliminary  prayer  was  full  of  humble 
entreaties  for  spiritual  aid.  Then  he  opened  at  the  third 
chapter  of  John,  which  he  read  and  commented  on,  at  the  same 
time  addressing  his  hearers  on  the  absolute  necessity  of  being 
born  again.”  “He  seemed,”  his  biographer  tells  us,  “fully  and 
cordially  to  recognize  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  only  founda¬ 
tion  of  a  sinner’s  hope  and  his  later  years  were  more  evan¬ 
gelical  than  the  earlier  ones.”  Samuel  May  was  brought  up  in 
King’s  Chapel  and  he  could  say  of  the  preaching  of  Dr.  Green¬ 
wood,  “it  contained  little  or  nothing  that  an  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tian  could  not  cordially  subscribe  to.”  “Let  no  man  say  when 
I  am  dead  that  I  trusted  in  my  own  merits.  I  trust  only  in 
the  mercy  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ,”  wrote  Dr.  Freeman, 
Greenwood’s  predecessor.12  How  world-wide  the  difference, 
let  us  say,  from  Dr.  Edward  Cummings,  who  not  long  ago 
in  the  South  Congregational  church  [the  writer  being  present] 
referred  to  our  Lord  as  Joshua  ben  Joseph  and  spoke  of  His 
atonement  as  “post-mortem  religion”;13  or  from  Dr.  Rihbany 
who  on  the  following  Sunday  actually  told  his  hearers  that 
they,  too,  could  say  of  themselves,  “  ‘I  am  the  Way,  the  Truth, 
and  the  Life.’  Why  not?” 

The  uprooted  feeling,  the  nostalgia,  the  craving  for  spir¬ 
itual  support  which  Mrs.  Stowe  describes,  was  reinforced  later 
by  a  revulsion  and  indignation  among  these  moderate  Uni¬ 
tarians  such  as  any  normal  Christian  would  feel  on  listening 
to  such  utterances.  The  paradoxes  of  Emerson,  the  blas¬ 
phemies  of  Parker,*  furnished  occasions  enough  for  this  indig¬ 
nation.  The  leakage  of  the  dissatisfied  from  Unitarianism  grew 

•“The  Lord’s  Sapper  is  a  heathenish  rite  and  means  very  little.  Cast 
away  the  elements.  Let  all  who  will  come  into  a  parlor  and  have  a 
social  religious  meeting,  eat  bread  and  wine,  if  you  like,  or  curds  and 
cream  and  baked  apples  and  have  a  conversation  free  and  cheerful,  on 
moral  questions.” 

“It  is  folly,  even  impiety  to  say  that  God  cannot  create  a  greater 
soul  than  that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.” 

“It  is  the  same  great  problem  of  duty  which  is  to  be  wrought  out  by 
all, — huckster,  merchant,  lawyer,  harlot,  minister,  poetess,  orator,  Dinah 


16 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


constantly.  Its  main  current  swung  into  the  Episcopal  church, 
the  contention  with  orthodox  Puritanism  having  been  too 
strong  to  make  easy  any  reconciliation  with  the  “standing 
order.”  “We  have  seen,”  said  the  New  Englander ,  Oct., 
1845,  “Episcopal  churches  erected  almost  solely  by  seceders 
from  Unitarian  societies.  .  .  So  great  has  been  the  movement  in 
this  direction  that  we  have  heard  in  Episcopal  circles  the  con¬ 
fident  boast  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  that  church  and  her 
special  mission  in  Massachusetts  to  recover  the  Unitarians  to 
the  true  faith.” 

This  secession  was  more  or  less  constant  through  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  and  was  especially  marked  in  the  ministries  of 
Dr.  Huntington  and  Bishop  Brooks.  It  can  be  explained 
only  by  the  fact  of  an  unsatisfied  spiritual  thirst  and  should 
be  set  in  contrast  to  the  enthusiastic  utterances  from  new 
comers  which  appear  in  the  official  literature  of  the  American 
Unitarian  Association.* 

on  negro  hill  and  Jesus  on  Mt.  Tabor.  And  it  is  not  of  such  future 
consequence  to  us  as  men  fancy  whether  the  tools  of  our  work  be  a 
basket  or  a  warehouse,  or  a  mop  or  a  cross.” — Weiss,  Life  of  Parker , 
Vol.  1,  155  and  140  and  Vol.  2,  504. 

To  those  who  know  the  facts  it  is  a  commonplace  that  Theodore 
Parker  did  more  than  any  other  man  to  fill  Episcopal  churches  and  to 
establish  them  on  a  secure  foundation.  C.R.  1910:1182. 

*Of  these  converts  to  Unitarianism  the  Rev.  Theodore  Bacon  says: 
“A  considerable  proportion  of  them  remain  with  us  but  for  a  time.” 
C.R.  1915:898. 

To  these  devout  Unitarians  the  Age  of  Reason  was  as  antipathetic 
as  it  would  be  to  devout  Christians  today  and  their  apologist,  Dr.  Ellis, 
used  to  charge  with  unfairness  those  who  put  quotations  from  Paine 
and  from  Unitarians  in  parallel.  But  when  the  time  came  to  erect  a 
memorial  to  Parker  Unitarian  opinion  had  so  far  changed  that  the  main 
hall  of  the  building  could  be  given  the  name  of  Paine  Hall  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  Parker  had  said  of  him  “he  is  no  man  for  my  fancying. 
.  .  .  He  was  filthy  in  his  personal  habits.”  At  present  Paine  has  attained 
a  sort  of  Unitarian  canonization.  Dr.  G.  Bachelor  speaks  of  “the  recipi¬ 
ents  of  his  intellectual  bounty”  and  uses  the  phraseology  of  the  eleventh 
of  Hebrews  of  this  hero  of  faith  and  his  ilk.  (“What  shall  we  say  then, 
the  time  would  fail,  etc.”)  C.R.  1916:  604.  An  Indianapolis  church  has 
recently  unveiled  his  bust.  On  the  wayside  billboards  of  the  Unitarian 
church  at  Lancaster,  Mass.,  appear,  with  quotations  from  Persian  and 
Brahminic  Scriptures,  sentiments  from  Paine,  C.R.  1915:374,  and  we 
are  told  that  Mr.  McHale  gives  “talkettes”  on  Tom  Paine  to  Unitarian 
young  men’s  Sunday  school  classes.  C.R.  1915:1150. 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England  17 

Many  of  the  profounder  minds  in  English  Unitarianism, 
notably  S.  T.  Coleridge,  F.  D.  Maurice  and  R.  H.  Hutton, 
the  great  editor  of  the  Spectator,  returned  to  the  Christian  faith 
in  the  last  century.  Prof.  F.  D.  Huntington  of  Harvard  was 
the  most  outstanding  figure  in  the  return  in  New  England. 
“From  first  to  last,”  says  his  biographer,  “his  own  denomina¬ 
tion  conferred  on  him  almost  every  distinction  which  official 
station  could  afford,”  but  years  after  he  spoke  of  his  departure 
from  it  in  terms  of  happy  escape.  “It  is  the  anniversary  of 
that  blessed  day  in  1860  when  H.  and  G.  and  A.  went  with  me 
to  Christ  Church,  Cambridge,  in  the  evening  to  be  confirmed. 
We  were  going  out  from  a  place  of  unsatisfying  privileges, 
comfort,  and  honors,  a  barren  and  dry  land  where  no  water 
was,  into  a  country  which  we  had  not  known  save  by  faith 
and  as  it  were  in  dream  but  promised  to  us  and  given  to  our 
ancient  fathers.  As  it  proved  the  description  of  Palestine  in 
Deuteronomy  is  not  too  good  for  it.”  He  had  come  to  the  con¬ 
viction  that  “Christianity  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  theory  of  Christ;  that  the  Christian  heart  needs  both 
consolations  and  inspirations  which  Unitarianism,  even  in 
Channing  and  Martineau,  does  not  supply.”  In  a  remarkable 
article  in  the  Forum  (June,  1886)  he  asked  [referring  to  the 
disintegrating  tendencies  of  Unitarianism],  “Is  there  anywhere 
in  ecclesiastical  annals  an  instance  of  so  swift  a  plunge  down¬ 
wards  in  any  association  of  people  bearing  the  name  of 
Christ  [by]  simply  losing  hold  of  the  central  fact  of  reve¬ 
lation  ?” 

“Broad  room  was  opened  for  more  extensive  relaxations,” 
he  continues,  describing  the  course  of  Unitarianism  into  stark 
unbelief.  “Individual  independence  is  a  rapid  but  bold  rider 
and  drives  with  loose  reins.  Institutional  Christianity  began  to 
be  regarded  more  as  a  superstition  than  as  a  safeguard  or  an 
obligation.  Ordinances  were  optional.  All  beliefs  were  elec¬ 
tive.  Any  distinctive  divinity  in  Christ,  the  personality  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  a  sacrificial  redemption,  a  permanent  and  heredi¬ 
tary  disease  of  sin  in  human  nature  needing  such  redemption 


18 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


.  .  .  were  emphatically,  if  not  passionately,  rejected  whether 
as  facts  or  dogmas. 

“There  would  be  from  a  believing  past  and  from  many 
sides  sources  of  God’s  gracious  help,  high-toned  families,  pure 
lives,  encouraging  and  enlightening  preaching,  ardent  reformers ; 
but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  practically  the  upshot  could  be 
escaped  that  everybody  is  to  do  in  this  world  of  temptation, 
error,  and  folly  what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes.”* 

A  group  of  Unitarians,  turning  away  from  the  radicalisms 
of  Theodore  Parker,  organized  on  the  Boston  Back  Bay,  under 
Dr.  Huntington’s  leadership,  a  new  and  powerful  church,  giv¬ 
ing  to  it  the  significant  name  of  Emmanuel,  God  with  us.14 

Equally  striking  testimony  to  the  progressive  dechristianizing 
of  Unitarianism  to  a  point  where  it  became  intolerable  to  many 
Unitarians  themselves  came  later  from  the  leading  protagonist 
of  Unitarian  controversy,  Dr.  George  E.  Ellis.  The  following 
letter  from  him  [dated  April,  1881]  appears  in  the  biography 
of  Dr.  Phillips  Brooks,  who  himself  was  baptized  a  Unitarian. 

“Nothing  will  ever  lower  my  sense  of  the  profound  indebted¬ 
ness,  of  the  obligations  of  this  especial  community  to  that  class 
of  persons,  clerical  and  lay,  of  the  last  generation,  who  were 
known  as  Liberal  Christians,  devout,  serious,  earnest,  Bible- 

*At  the  close  of  his  life  Dr.  Huntington  wrote,  “I  was  brought  up 
and  was  a  minister  among  those  who  deny  the  truth  of  the  Trinity.  My 
heart’s  desire  for  all  such  is  that  they  may  be  saved.”  Memoir ,  182.  On 
his  48th  birthday  he  wrote:  “How  little  accomplished.  There  are  those 
thirteen  years  in  the  Unitarian  denominational  interest.  How  shall  I 
get  them  back.  Alas,  only  by  trying  to  prevent  others  from  a  like  mis¬ 
take.”  206. 

Interesting  light  is  thrown  on  the  misgivings  which  were  working  in 
Unitarian  minds  in  some  reminiscences  of  Elizabeth  Peabody,  prominent 
in  these  circles  and  close  friend  of  Channing.  “In  the  last  year  of  his 
[Dr.  Channing’s]  life,”  she  writes,  “my  own  mind  was  drawn  to  a  view 
of  orthodoxy  quite  contrary  to  that  which  I  had  cherished  for  years.  I 
began  to  understand  what  truths  were  probably  in  the  eyes  of  those  who 
had  formularized  the  Athanasian  creed.  In  the  first  place  I  thought 
I  saw  what  the  original  Trinitarians  wanted  to  express  respecting  the 
nature  of  God  and  man  and  what  the  atonement  meant  to  Luther  and 
Calvin.  My  mind  was  very  strongly  moved  with  these  new  ideas  and 
I  seemed  to  seize  hold  of  a  philosophy  of  religion  that  unlocked  and 
explained  mysteries  of  my  own  experience  which  the  formulas  of  Unita¬ 
rianism  did  not  cover.” — Sprague,  Unitarian  Pulpit ,  382. 


Unitarian  Defection  in  New  England  19 

Christians.  Their  works  and  services  have  left  an  enduring 
benefaction  to  this  good  city  and  to  the  college.  But  with 
existing  so-called  Unitarianism  I  have  for  many  years  had  no 
concern.  It  has  left  no  authoritative  basis  for  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  and  institution  common  to  preachers  and  people.  The 
preacher  has  for  his  stock  and  capital  his  own  individualism  of 
opinion  and  belief  and  his  utterances  are  like  notes,  dependent 
on  his  own  credit  and  integrity.”15 

Finally,  I  would  reproduce  as  an  illustration  of  the  spiritual 
hopelessness  which  seems  to  lurk  in  the  background  of  Uni¬ 
tarianism  and  which  has  led  so  many  to  flee  it,  a  communication 
from  one  who  has  come  out  of  its  more  intimate  circle.  Some 
years  ago  I  had  referred  in  a  paragraph  to  the  saying  of  the 
late  Prof.  Francis  J.  Child  that  he  always  pitied  an  agnostic 
as  one  who  had  forfeited  the  happiness  of  teaching  his  little 
children  to  pray.  This  quotation  brought  from  Prof.  Child’s 
son,  Francis  S.  Child,  two  letters  which  expressed  his  reaction 
from  Unitarianism  with  a  bitter  sharpness.  “I  distrust  Uni¬ 
tarianism,”  he  wrote.  “I  have  intimately  known  its  leaders, 
preachers  and  laymen,  American  and  English,  from  the  seven¬ 
ties  down.  What  impression  have  they  made  on  me?  Abso¬ 
lutely  none.  My  whole  impression  of  Dr.  Hale’s  preaching 
and  personality  for  example,  is  that  of  emptiness.  Without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  If  we  have  not  the  Son 
we  have  not  life.  C.  W.  Eliot  is  a  good  example  among  laymen 
as  is  John  Burroughs,  both  of  whom  I  have  known  in  public 
and  private  life.  Pleasant  companions,  no  doubt,  and  interest¬ 
ing  personalities,  but  to  what  purpose  when  their  ways  are  the 
ways  of  death. 

“I  remember  dear  Dr.  Holmes  [Oliver  Wendell]  saying,  ‘I 
can  see  no  excuse  for  Unitarianism  to  exist  longer.  Whatever 
good  it  may  have  done  the  reason  for  it  is  long  passed  away.’  ” 

Then  he  proceeds  to  give  this  personal  testimony: 

“Father,  who  was  born  on  Salem  Street,  Boston,  1825,  in  his 
great-grandfather  Paul  Revere’s  house,  united  with  the  local 
Methodist  church  on  confession  when  about  fourteen  years  of 


20 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


age.  When  a  professor  at  Harvard  about  1850  his  letters  from 
then  to  1860  to  my  mother  were  full  of  deepest  faith  and  often 
referred  to  the  Cross  in  the  most  devout  and  sweetly  fervent 
manner.  But  mother  was  a  Unitarian,  her  mother  own  cousin 
to  Dr.  Channing,  and  together  they  attended  the  First  Parish 
[Unitarian]  church.  Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody  was  their  pastor. 
When  I  was  ten  years  old  (1879)  family  prayers,  regularly 
held  up  to  that  period,  were  dropped  off.  Father  ceased  going 
to  church  more  than  once  in  a  great  while  by  1885.  At  his 
death  in  my  arms  in  the  Massachusetts  General  Hospital  in 
1896  he  had  lost  all  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  Saviour  and  I, 
under  the  same  influence,  was  utterly  without  hope  and  in  the 
depths  of  despair.  I  was  convicted  of  sin  and  joined  the  First 
Congregational  church,  Cambridge,  on  confession  of  faith  in 
November,  1900.  Papa  was  always  an  intense  lover  of  the 
Bible  but  read  it,  alas!  little  after  1880  or  at  least  less  and 
less,  except  that  being  professor  of  English  literature  he  taught 
the  Bible  as  literature  once  in  three  years. 

“I  ought  to  say  that  Unitarianism  which  ruined  papa’s  hap¬ 
piness  and  peace  and  likely  his  eternal  joy  and  spoiled  all  my 
childhood,  youth,  and  young  manhood,  I  have  observed  to  be 
always  deteriorating  and  disintegrating  in  its  influence  and 
effect,  spiritually  and  morally.  I  know  many  instances,  espe¬ 
cially  in  the  leading  families  of  Boston.” 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  I 

1.  Horton,  Unitarianism,  5.  2.  Walker,  History  of  the  Congregationalist 

Churches,  343.  3.  Autobiography  of  Lyman  Beecher,  Vol.  1,  449.  4.  The 

Rights  of  the  Congregationalist  Churches  of  Massachusetts,  3  and  7.  5.  Walker 
op.  cit.  342.  6.  Worthington,  Historical  Address,  250th  Anniversary  of  Dedham, 
55.  7.  Worthington,  History  of  Dedham,  126.  8.  Ellis,  The  Unitarian  Con¬ 

troversy,  427.  9.  Alexander  Mackenzie,  The  First  Church  in  Cambridge,  196, 
189,  194,  195,  198,  203,  206.  10.  Quoted  in  Ellis,  The  Unitarian  Controversy 
(415)  from  the  Puritan  Recorder.  11.  Autobiography  of  Lyman  Beecher,  Vol. 
2,  110,  11.  12.  Sprague,  Annals  of  the  Unitarian  Pulpit,  115,  118,  245-6,  290, 

498,  504,  489,  172.  13.  The  Layman’s  Answer,  6.  14.  Memoir  of  F.  D.  Hunt¬ 
ington,  153,  366,  361.  15.  Life  and  Letters  of  Phillips  Brooks,  Vol.  2,  285. 


CHAPTER  II 


CHRISTIAN  MISSIONS  AND  UNITARIAN 

MISSIONS 

He  could  do  no  mighty  work  there  because  of  their 
unbelief. 

IT  is  a  striking  coincidence  that  the  Unitarian  defection 
from  Christianity  coincided  with  the  beginnings  of  the 
greatest  expansion  of  Christianity  since  apostolic  days. 
New  England  Congregationalists  ejected  from  their  churches 
not  only  went  to  work  to  build  others,  together  with  Andover 
and  Amherst  to  take  the  place  of  Harvard.  They  also  pioneered 
the  West  and  laid  the  foundatians  for  the  American  Board, 
the  greatest  spiritual  institution  which  has  come  out  of  New 
England.  It  is  worth  while  to  meditate  on  what  the  world  at 
large  would  have  lost  if  Jefferson’s  forecast  had  proved  true 
and  Unitarianism  become  the  predominant  religion  of  America. 

There  would  have  been  no  great  apostles  as  Judson  and 
Hamlin  and  Thoburn  and  Ashmore  and  Wells  Williams  and 
Horace  Pitkin  and  W.  A.  P.  Martin  and  Bliss  and  Greene 
and  Dwight;  no  great  missionary  families  as  the  Scudders,  the 
Gulicks,  the  Schaufflers,  the  Riggses.  Peter  Parker  would  not 
have  opened  China  at  the  point  of  his  lancet  nor  would  he  have 
had  his  great  successors  in  Asia  such  as  Dr.  Wanless  of  Miraj 
and  Dr.  Van  Allen  of  Madura.  The  Doshisha  University 
would  have  been  unbuilt,  Robert  College  never  founded  on  the 
Bosphorus;  there  would  have  been  no  St.  Luke’s  hospital  in 
Tokyo  or  Presbyterian  hospital  in  Canton;  no  great  mission 
presses  in  Beirut,  in  Rangoon,  in  Calcutta,  in  Shanghai.  Thou¬ 
sands  of  lepers  would  be  rotting  in  dirt  who  are  now  in  shel¬ 
tered  homes.  Christie  and  Nesbit  and  Shedd  and  Frederick 


21 


22 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Greene  and  Emily  Wheeler  and  Corinne  Shattuck  would  not 
have  championed  Armenia  and  pioneered  relief  and  relief  indus¬ 
tries  among  her  orphans.  There  would  have  been  no  agricul¬ 
tural  missions  such  as  Higginbottom  is  building  up  in  Gwalior 
and  the  missionaries  of  Nanking  University  in  China.  The 
great  Indian  famine  relief  which  Hume  headed  in  1906  would 
not  have  come  into  being  nor  would  there  be  that  chain  of 
Presbyterian  mission  schools  along  the  Nile.  The  best  friends 
of  Asia  and  Africa  would  have  spent  their  lives  denouncing 
dogma  in  America  and  the  open  sores  of  the  world  would  have 
run  unstanched.  I  wonder  if  there  is  really  an  honest  Uni¬ 
tarian  that  is  not  glad  that  early  Unitarianism  did  not  burn 
over  a  larger  area  of  American  Christianity. 

Not  that  Unitarianism  has  not  made  attempts  at  missions, 
but  between  Unitarian  mission  theory  and  mission  empiry  is  a 
deep  chasm  indeed.  “  ‘Honor  all  men,’  ”  wrote  Dr.  E.  E.  Hale, 
“makes  it  easier  today  for  the  Unitarian  missionary  [than  for 
others]  to  deal  with  the  Ute  Indian  or  with  a  Fiji  islander. 
They  meet  not  as  enemies  on  two  sides  of  an  entrenchment 
but  as  the  common  children  of  one  God.”1  So  far  theory. 
But  have  there  ever  been  Unitarian  missionaries  to  Utes  or 
Fijis?  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

There  was  a  Unitarian  mission  to  Japan  and  Dr.  Hale  and 
President  Eliot  were  on  the  platform  of  the  Arlington  Street 
church  when  its  initiation  received  the  benediction  of  “Jesus, 
Buddha,  and  the  eight  million  Japanese  deities”  from  the  mouth 
of  young  Mr.  Fukazawa.2*  Dr.  Clay  Macauley,  its  leader, 
had  high  hopes  for  it.  “I  am  bold  to  say  that  the  American 
Unitarians  have  undertaken  nothing  of  greater  importance. 

.  .  .  I  am  confident  that  our  mission  is  distinctly  prophetic  of 
an  era  for  the  Japanese  people  as  yet  unknown,  an  age  of  deep 
spiritual  awakening.” 

♦This  Mr.  Fukazawa  was  son  of  the  educator  Fukazawa  who  set 
himself  by  book  and  lecture  to  drive  Christianity  out  of  Japan  but  later, 
though  disbelieving  it,  still  urged  its  adoption  in  order  to  secure  Japan 
standing  among  the  nations.  (Strong,  Story  of  the  American  Board, 
354,  357.)  The  Unitarian  mission  was  closely  related  to  his  school. 


Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  23 


Later  he  wrote,  “We  are  probably  more  widely  known  in  the 
Empire  and  receive  more  attention  in  Japanese  current  litera¬ 
ture  than  any  other  foreign  religious  body  represented  in  the 
Far  East.”3  The  field  was  an  attractive  one,  free  from  all 
pioneering  discomforts  and  with  a  people  accessible  to  novelties. 
Mr.  Knapp,  who  spent  a  year  looking  over  the  ground  before 
the  mission  was  established,  declared  Japan  “ripe  for  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  gospel”  and  the  Japanese  “born  Unitarians.”4  Christian 
missions,  which  seem  to  be  the  only  really  hopeful  recruiting 
ground  for  Unitarianism,  were  well  established.  A  consider¬ 
able  number  of  Japanese  Christian  ministers  were  from  first 
to  last  picked  off.* 

Dr.  Macauley  seemed  to  have  had  hopes  of  the  Doshisha 
University  also,  that  noble  institution  of  nineteenth  century 
New  England  Christianity.!  “The  teachers  of  the  chief 
orthodox  Christian  college  of  Kyoto,  the  Doshisha,  though 
not  associated  with  your  mission  and  [though  they]  would 
decline  such  association  are  again  and  again  referred  to 
in  public  print  as  ‘Unitarian.’  The  changes  they  have  lately 
been  making  in  the  direction  of  a  liberal  administration  of  their 
institution  have  brought  upon  them  our  name.”5 

But  there  was  not  money  enough  in  Unitarian  Boston  to 
finance  its  few  representatives  in  Japan.!  Dr.  Macauley  was 
obliged  to  make  the  humiliating  confession, 

*Prof.  Onishi,  Prof.  Kishimoto,  Rev.  T.  Murai,  Prof.  Abe  and  Prof. 
Toyosaki  “all  coming  to  us  through  orthodox  Christianity.”  In  1921 
Mr.  Abe  reported  to  the  Unitarian  annual  meeting,  “Unfortunately 
there  is  retrogression  in  our  church.  Eighteen  years  ago  it  seated  400 
and  was  crowded.  Today  Sunday  attendance  averages  between  60  and 
100”  C.R.  1921:511. 

fCertain  of  the  Doshisha  faculty  adopted  Unitarian  views  and  the 
trustees  in  1897  took  out  of  the  constitution  the  unchangeable  article 
that  the  ethics  taught  there  should  be  based  on  Christianity.  The  Pru¬ 
dential  Committee  at  once  engaged  counsel  to  recover  the  trust  funds 
which  it  was  claimed  wrere  thus  being  perverted.  As  a  result  of  this 
pressure  a  new  board  was  elected  and  a  new  constitution  adopted  re¬ 
affirming  the  Christian  character  of  the  school. — Strong,  History  of  the 
American  Board,  361. 

^Yet  Dr.  Van  Ness  of  the  [Unitarian]  Second  Church,  Boston,  tells 
us  that  “it  is  easier  to  raise  thousands  for  the  Japan  Mission  than 
hundreds  for  work  in  the  South  End  of  Boston.”  At  the  250th  An- 


24 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


“There  is  but  little  money  called  for  for  our  work,  not  nearly 
as  much  as  many  of  our  parishes  expend  each  in  its  narrow 
limits.  And  yet  that  small  amount  has  been  growing  smaller 
from  year  to  year  for  several  years  past  and  now  the  question 
has  become  serious  with  your  board  of  directors  as  to  whether 
they  are  justified  in  their  endeavor  to  uphold  longer  this  part 
of  their  burden.  At  the  board’s  last  meeting  a  sum  sufficient 
to  ca&ry  the  Japan  mission  only  six  months  longer  was  voted 
and  the  whole  future  thereafter  left  open  and  overcast  with 
doubt.  .  .  .  Must  it  be  that  now  when  we  have  almost  every¬ 
where  gained  recognition  among  the  Japanese  as  the  chief  visible 
embodiment  of  the  spirit  of  the  times,  as  prophetic  of  true 
religion  and  ethical  insight,  our  voice  shall  be  stilled?”3 

Yes,  so  it  was  to  be.  American  Unitarianism  sold  out  its 
property  and  retired,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  according 
to  Dr.  Macauley  “as  a  whole  Unitarianism  has  had  a  wider 
and  deeper-reaching  effect  than  any  other  of  the  spiritual  or 
religious  agencies  that  have  been  brought  into  Japan.”7  Mr. 
Hawkes,  an  English  Unitarian,  wrote  at  the  same  time  of  a 
Mr.  Meikawa,  a  Japanese  preacher  of  great  eloquence  trained 
for  the  ministry  among  the  Presbyterians,  who  had  seceded  to 
Unitarianism.  He  had  pledged  English  Unitarians  for  his 
salary  of  £50  annually  but  found  it  impossible  to  collect  “this 
trifling  sum”  in  the  English  churches.8 

“The  honored  president  of  the  National  Conference”  is 
quoted  as  finding  in  this  Unitarian  mission  “a  crucial  experi¬ 
ment.”  I  think  that  to  be  the  case  and  that  Unitarianism  is 
here  shown  to  be  marked  for  failure  in  any  attempt  to  build 
up  a  following  among  distinctly  non-Christian  people. 

niversary  of  this  church  he  said:  ‘‘Hereafter  we  can  listen  with 
respect  and  sympathy  to  far-off  missionary  appeals  for  help  to  those 
who  believe  our  chief  duty  is  to  spread  the  gospel  in  Japan,  Sn 
the  hills  of  India,  in  Hungary,  among  the  Molokans  of  the  Trans- 
Caucasus;  but  to  one  and  all  such  appeals  we  can  kindly  but  firmly 
return  the  answer,  ‘This  is  not  our  direct  work ;  not  the  especial  thing 
for  which  we  were  founded.  We  wish  you  God-speed  in  your  efforts 
but  we  cannot  turn  aside  to  do  your  particular  work.’  ” — Twenty  Years 
of  Life,  59  and  63. 


Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  25 


Other  Unitarian  enterprises  abroad  need  not  detain  us. 
“Singh  of  India,  missioner  to  the  common  people,  a  great  Uni¬ 
tarian  pioneer”  is  the  subject  of  an  obituary  notice  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Register ,  March  6,  1824.  Mr.  Singh  seems  to  have  been 
a  devoted  man,  an  ex-Methodist  and  “trained  in  an  orthodox 
mission  school”  who  built  up  a  little  Unitarian  community 
in  the  Khasi  hills,  Assam.  But  the  backing  received  from  Eng¬ 
lish  and  American  Unitarianism  has  been  so  slight  that  the 
mission  has  been  unable  “at  any  time  to  support  more  than 
one  paid  worker  among  all  these  churches  and  schools”  and 
Mr.  Singh,  “great  Unitarian  pioneer”  though  he  was,  was 
obliged  to  make  his  living  as  a  clerk  while  carrying  on  his  work 
as  missionary. 

One  ought,  perhaps,  in  this  connection  to  mention  the  defunct 
Harvard  Medical  Mission  in  Shanghai.  Yale  has  a  great  edu¬ 
cational  and  medical  plant  in  Changsha,  Hunan;  Oberlin,  an 
educational  mission  in  Shansi;  and  Princeton,  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  and  many  other  colleges  support  Christian  mis¬ 
sions  abroad.  The  Harvard  mission  was  framed  on  similar 
lines. 

President  Roosevelt  was  its  early  president.  Rich  gradu¬ 
ates,  Mr.  James  Stillman  and  others,  were  on  the  board.  China 
was  chosen  as  its  field  and  the  Harvard  Medical  School  of 
China,  Inc.,  officered  by  an  imposing  list  of  Harvard  men,  was 
its  first  venture.  It  was  to  give  China  modem  medicine 
together  with  “the  Christian  religion  in  its  simplest  forms”  to 
use  President  Eliot’s  words  concerning  it.  But  its  career  as 
a  mission  institution  did  not  last  long  and  it  was  finally  turned 
over  to  the  Rockefeller  China  interests  for  nursing  and  eventual 
adoption.* 

*The  Harvard  Mission  is  still  in  existence  in  a  small  way  and 
finances  two  men  abroad.  It  is  perhaps  significant  that  it  has  not  sent 
them  out  to  do  independent  or  pioneering  work  but  places  them  in 
evangelical  missions,  a  rather  dubious  contribution  as  the  following  indi¬ 
cates.  The  report  of  the  mission  for  1922  is  before  me.  One  of  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  is  writing  from  the  Syrian  Protestant  college  at  Beirut.  He 
differentiates  between  the  evangelistic  and  the  educational  missionary. 
“The  evangelistic  missionary  pins  his  faith  to  sudden  change  but  the 
educational  missionary  is  usually  indifferent  to  or  actually  skeptical  of 


26 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


That  Unitarianism  is  a  non-conductor  of  spiritual  life  is 
evinced  by  its  failure  in  this  field.  It  is  not  merely  that  it  is 
more  comfortable  to  “huddle  closely  around  the  cozy  stove  of 
civilization  in  this  blessed  Boston”  (H.  W.  Bellows).  Uni¬ 
tarianism  simply  cannot  Christianize;  cannot  go  to  a  degraded 
pagan  people  and  make  new  men  and  women  of  them.  If  the 
Puritan  momentum  had  carried  far  enough  Boston  Unitarianism 
might  in  a  measure  have  imitated  the  educational  and  Samaritan 
work  of  American  Christianity  abroad.  But  to  bring  forth 
little  churches  of  the  new-born  such  as  are  now  scattered  by 
tens  of  thousands  through  the  non-Christian  world  and  which 
are  its  only  hope,  is  absolutely  beyond  it.  Nor  has  it  any  sense 
of  responsibility  in  the  matter.  A  hundred  years  have  passed 
since  its  rise  in  New  England  and  the  following  is  the 
confession  which  its  best  informed  student  of  missions  has  to 
make. 

“Do  we  as  American  Unitarians  have  any  national  foreign 
mission  society  as  most  denominations  do?  No.  Are  we  as  a 

professed  conversion  and  pins  his  faith  to  evolution.  .  .  .  No  student  is 
required  to  attend  chapel  or  made  to  study  the  Bible.”  Those  who  elect 
to  stay  away  must  take  a  course  in  ethics  and  the  history  of  religions 
with  this  Harvard  missionary.  He  writes:  “In  ethics  I  have  tried  to 
show  the  students  that  no  religion  has  a  monopoly  of  truth  nor  can  any 
one  church  or  religion  claim  to  be  the  sole  recipient  of  revelation  and  sole 
channel  of  God’s  saving  grace.”  Of  evangelism  he  has  a  poor  opinion 
indeed.  “It  must  be  confessed  that  such  a  policy  results  in  failure.  Few 
indeed  are  the  men  who  come  forward  and  say  ‘I  wish  to  change  my 
religion’  and  those  few  nearly  always  turn  out  badly.  .  .  .  The  ‘convert’ 
may,  often  does,  lapse.  Evolution  takes  longer  to  effect  the  change  but 
the  change  is  more  lasting.” 

As  a  result  of  Dr.  Hale’s  advocacy  Ramabai  circles  were  at  one 
time  formed  in  various  Unitarian  churches.  They  finally  abandoned 
her.  “In  later  years  Pundita  Ramabai  became  more  outspokenly  ortho¬ 
dox,  carrying  on  a  mission  not  only  for  educating  but  also  for  Christian¬ 
izing  [in  the  orthodox  sense]  Hindus.  Of  course  this  was  a  disappoint¬ 
ment  to  American  Unitarians.  Under  such  conditions  their  sympathy 
with  her  work  and  their  financial  contributions  to  its  support  inevitably 
grew  less  and  less.”  C.R.  1922:962. 

C.  H.  A.  Dali,  an  American  Unitarian,  conducted  an  industrial 
school  in  Calcutta  for  many  years.  Fortunately  he  did  not  have  to  de¬ 
pend  on  Boston  for  his  support.  “He  himself  inherited  a  considerable 
fortune  but  spent  nearly  all  of  it  on  his  work.”  (Eliot,  Heralds  of  a 
Liberal  Faith.)  At  his  death  his  five  schools  were  closed  and  all  visible 
trace  of  the  many  years’  labors  vanished. — Memorial  to  C.  H.  Dali ,  67. 


Christian  Missions  arid  Unitarian  Missions  27 


denomination  now  supporting  any  foreign  missions?  Yes,  one. 
[Now  defunct].  How  many  missionaries  have  we  in  the  field? 
One.  [Now  withdrawn].  Have  we  any  women’s  foreign 
missionary  society?  No.  Have  we  any  missionary  society  for 
our  young  people?  No.  Are  we  training  our  children  in  our 
Sunday  schools  to  become  interested  in  foreign  missions? 
No. 

“Have  we  any  students  in  our  colleges  and  theological  schools 
preparing  to  go  to  foreign  fields  as  missionaries?  So  far  as  I 
am  aware  not  one.  Do  our  large  and  influential  Unitarian 
clubs  and  other  organizations  of  men  follow  the  example  of 
such  clubs  and  organizations  in  other  denominations  and  have 
evenings  devoted  to  foreign  missions?  I  am  not  aware  that 
any  of  our  clubs  ever  consider  foreign  mission  subjects.  Are 
our  ministers  accustomed  to  preach  often  on  foreign  mission 
themes?  I  am  not  aware  that  this  kind  of  preaching  is  ever 
done  in  our  pulpits.  Are  our  churches  accustomed  to  take  up 
regular  stated  collections  for  foreign  missions  once  a  year  or 
oftener  as  other  churches  do?  I  do  not  know  anything  of  the 
kind. 

“Are  we  Unitarians  satisfied  with  this  condition  of  things? 
Can  we  look  other  Christians  in  the  face,  can  we  look  the  out¬ 
side  world  in  the  face  without  shame?”  (J.  T.  Sunderland, 
C.  R.  1912:732  abridged.) 

What  is  the  reason  for  this  situation?  Another  Unitarian, 
the  Rev.  Theodore  Bacon,  answers  with  accuracy:  “That 
which  is  lacking  in  Unitarianism  is  conversion,  the  coming  of 
a  new  life,”  he  tells  us. 

“Should  such  new  life  come  into  our  churches  there  would 
also  come  with  it  a  new  power  to  reach  others.  It  is, 
I  think,  a  rare  occurrence  at  present  for  Unitarian  preach¬ 
ing  or  Unitarian  church  activity  of  any  kind  to  reach 
out  and  bring  into  the  religious  life  those  who  are  con¬ 
sciously  engaged  in  wrong-doing.  We  have  to  get  the  Metho¬ 
dists  or  some  other  body  to  do  that  for  us  and  then  if  they 
become  discontented  with  Methodism  or  whatever,  we  try  to 


28 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


show  them  the  beauty  of  our  gospel.*  But  is  it  not  a  little 
humiliating  that  this  primary  work  of  ‘saving  sinners’  should  be 
beyond  our  reach? 

“Sinners  have  no  special  predilection  for  orthodox  doctrine 
as  such.  They  would  do  without  it  if  they  could.  But  they 
do  want  something  which  shall  give  them  a  new  hold  on  life 
and  that  we  seem  unable  to  give  them.  That  direct  spiritual 
help  which  shall  strengthen  them  to  turn  away  from  the  evil 
in  their  lives  and  lay  hold  on  the  good  seems  unattainable  as 
presented  by  us.  If  we  could  but  realize  the  reality  of  repent¬ 
ance,  of  conversion,  of  regeneration,  I  cannot  but  believe  that 
we  could  reach  such  men  with  greater  power.”9 

At  times  one  notes  a  stirring  but  it  soon  dies  down.  The 
First  Unitarian  Missionary  Conference  was  held  in  Boston, 
Nov.  11,  1913,  a  century  after  the  founding  of  the  American 
Board.  Dr.  Wendte,  a  participant,  described  it  as  “a  daring 
innovation  in  view  of  the  habitual  abstention  of  Unitarians 
from  foreign  missionary  endeavor  and  the  prevailing  opinion 
among  them  that  foreign  missions  are  more  or  less  of  an  imper¬ 
tinence  as  well  as  waste  of  effort  and  money.”  The  war- 
horses  were  all  there,  Peabody,  the  Eliots,  Dole,  Rihbany  and 
W.  H.  P.  Faunce.  “The  spirited  discussions,  the  devotional 
exercises,  the  earnest  singing  of  missionary  hymns,  lifted  the 
sessions  at  times  to  an  enthusiasm  and  fervor  not  often  witnessed 
at  Unitarian  meetings.”10  But  there  it  ended. 

Two  years  before  at  the  Unitarian  ministers  institute  at 
Meadville,  Pa.,  “it  was  unanimously  resolved  that  at  least  we 
thirty  or  more  Unitarians  would  henceforth  try  to  be  ashamed 
of  our  selfishness,  our  small  views,  our  limited  interest  in  others, 

*Thus  King’s  Chapel,  Boston,  has  an  Italian  Mission.  Its  provenance 
comes  out  in  this  statement  of  Mr.  Tagliatela,  the  missioner: 

“Everywhere  [In  Italy]  you  will  meet  some  Italian  who  has  been 
converted  by  Italian  Protestant  missionaries.  These  good  and  earnest 
Italian  orthodox  missionaries  do  an  excellent  work  and  in  a  brotherly 
manner.  They  open  the  way  to  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of 
God  and  consequently  to  Unitarianism.  ...  In  New  York  we  have  a 
large  group  of  Italian  Unitarians  formerly  members  of  my  Methodist 
church  in  that  city.  .  .  .  Another  group  is  in  Philadelphia  where  I 
was  for  two  years.”  C.R.  1917:700. 


Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  29 

our  narrow  thought  as  to  the  mission  of  Unitarianism  in  the 
world  and  would  try  from  this  time  on  to  think  and  act  in  ways 
more  worthy  of  our  faith. 

“And  to  begin  with  we  resolved  to  reach  out  a  helping  hand 
at  once  to  our  Brahmo  brethren  in  India  who  so  greatly  need 
our  encouragement  and  our  aid.”  The  Meadville  Conference 
of  the  Tuckerman  Association  was  accordingly  formed  to  co¬ 
operate  with  the  Samajists  “who  are  trying  to  do  in  India  much 
the  same  kind  of  religious  reform  work  we  are  trying  to  do 
here  only  under  conditions  ten  times  harder.” 

“We  all  said,  we  cannot  do  much  at  first  but  we  are  going 
to  begin.  Already  we  have  $3.80.  Let  nobody  smile.  This  is 
a  small  nest-egg.  There  will  be  more  and  larger  eggs  in  the 
nest  by  and  by.”11 

The  greatest  feat  which  Unitarianism  has  ever  accomplished 
was  the  raising  of  two  and  a  quarter  millions  in  the  drive  of 
1920-23.  But  of  this  not  even  $3.80  was  set  apart  for  foreign 
missions.  President  Eliot  after  a  visit  to  the  East  called  for  a 
million  for  Unitarian  missions.  President  Taft  seconded  the 
call.  No  nest-egg  has  been  found  for  the  fund.12  It  is  too 
cold  in  Unitarian  Boston.  They  simply  cannot  crank  the  car. 

They  look  enviously  at  the  great  missionary  super-six,  the 
American  Board.  Is  it  possible  they  could  get  into  it  with  their 
bundles  of  leaven?*  For  years  Prof.  E.  C.  Moore  of  the 
Harvard  Divinity  School  has  been  president  of  the  great  organi¬ 
zation  and  it  is  Prof.  Moore  who  says  to  Unitarians  in  a  tract 
of  the  Unitarian  Association,  “It  is  from  our  own  ancestors 
in  the  faith  that  we  are  separated  rather  than  from  one 
another.”  Things,  too,  seem  to  be  going  their  way.  '  Rev.  W. 
I.  Lawrence,  erstwhile  Unitarian  missionary  in  Japan,  thinks 
that  the  missionaries  there  though  calling  themselves  by  other 
names  are  “in  the  very  great  majority  Unitarians  at  heart.”14 

*“If  things  go  on  improving  at  the  rate  recorded  in  the  missionary 
annals  of  our  time  the  day  may  not  be  far  distant  when  even  a  Unita¬ 
rian  physician  and  teacher  might  be  sent  under  the  auspices  of  the 
A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  to  minister  to  the  needs  of  our  fellow-men  in  fartibus 
infidelium ”  C.R.  1910:1154. 


30 


The  Leaven  of  the.  Sadducees 


The  Rev.  J.  Edgar  Park,  Congregationalist  pastor  in  Newton, 
would  open  the  car  door.  “It  would  be  a  magnanimous  and  at 
the  same  time  practical  step  toward  Christian  unity  if  some 
of  the  Unitarian  churches  as  churches  would  resume  their  inter¬ 
est  in  say,  the  American  Board,  by  contributing  as  churches  to 
the  educational  and  medical  work  done  by  it.  Indeed  now 
when  so  many  stations  are  being  occupied  by  the  younger  men 
I  feel  that  it  is  more  and  more  the  case  that  the  actual  preach¬ 
ing  and  teaching  of  the  missionaries  of  the  Board  is  largely 
along  the  line  that  would  be  approved  by  both  sections  of  our 
faith.” 

If  there  are  those  who  would  admit  Unitarians  to  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Board  there  are  others  ready  to  accept  the  invitation. 
What  a  splendid  precedent  in  the  history  of  the  Andover  endow¬ 
ments!  Who  else  should  be  the  residuary  legatee  of  the  mis¬ 
sionary  gifts  of  the  other  great  foundation  of  New  England 
Congregationalism?  “There  are  only  five  hundred  Unitarian 
churches  in  the  United  States  and  many  of  them  are  young  and 
struggling,”  writes  Dr.  Wendte.  Who  would  look  to  these 
impoverished  folk  for  independent  work  abroad?  “Our  denom¬ 
ination  as  a  whole  is  hardly  a  century  in  existence  and  must 
still  dispute  its  right  to  exist.  .  .  .  The  wisest  way  for  us,  there¬ 
fore,  is  to  co-operate  to  what  extent  we  can  in  undertakings 
already  existing  which  under  various  .  .  .  auspices  perform 
admirable  educational  and  humanitarian  services.  Such  insti¬ 
tutions  as  Robert  College  at  Constantinople,  the  American  col¬ 
leges  at  Beirut,  Assuan,  and  Salonica  and  others  like  them 
deserve  our  sympathy  and  modest  support.” 15 

One  kind  of  contact  with  heathenism  Unitarians  cultivate 
more  successfully.  The  Parliament  of  Religion  in  1893  was 
chiefly  the  promotion  of  Dr.  Lloyd-Jones  and  other  Unitarians 
or  near-Unitarians.  It  was  also  Unitarian  ladies  in  Cambridge 
who  were  the  chief  financial  sufferers  from  the  insinuating 
Swamis,  Yogis,  and  other  adepts  who  represented  Asia  there  or 
followed  to  America  in  the  wake  of  the  Chicago  gathering.16 
An  extension  of  this  favorite  idea  of  inter-religious  comity  was 


Christian  Missions  arid.  Unitarian  Missions  31 


the  Congress  of  Theism  planned  by  Messrs.  Wendte  and  Sun¬ 
derland  but  unrealized  because  of  the  war.  It  was  taken  up 
with  interest  by  Hindu  theists,  Reformed  Jews,  Sikhs,  Parsees, 
theistic  Buddhists,  Theosophists,  Bahaists  and  some  Moslems 
of  India  and  Syria.  This  Pilgrim  Theistic  Congress  was  to 
journey  around  the  world  holding  sessions  at  various  points, 
Tokyo,  Shanghai,  Colombo,  Calcutta,  Delhi,  Cairo,  Jerusalem 
and  Constantinople.  One  wonders  if  the  “humanist”  or  atheist 
Unitarians  were  to  travel  with  this  “theist”  caravan.17 

Allah  is  one  and  Channing  is  his  prophet.  Will  Unitarian 
muezzins  ever  cry  their  summons  from  the  minarets  of  Cairo 
and  Constantinople?  Hardly,  yet  we  read  in  the  Unitarian 
organ  an  account  of  the  visit  of  one  of  their  representatives, 
fresh  from  their  school  at  Meadville,  to  a  professor  of  theology 
at  the  Azhar  mosque  school  in  Cairo.  “I  told  him  what  I 
was  .  .  .  and  asked  him  whether  or  not  the  Mohammedans 
would  favor  co-operation  with  the  Unitarians.  ...  He  asked 
me  if  besides  denying  the  godship  of  Jesus  we  believed  in  the 
prophetic  mission  of  Mohammed  and  in  the  religious  value  of 
the  Koran.  On  receiving  an  affirmative  answer  he  was  com¬ 
pletely  satisfied  and  said  that  he  knew  no  obstacles  why  the  two 
religious  bodies  could  not  work  together  with  the  utmost  cor¬ 
diality.  He  expressed  a  desire  to  see  our  literature  translated 
into  Arabic.”18 

“Islam  should  be  looked  upon  as  a  sister  of  Christianity.  It 
is  nearer  in  many  respects  liberal  Christianity  than  is  the  ortho¬ 
dox  Christian  faith,”  quotes  the  Christian  Register  from  one  of 
its  kindred  spirits  [Prof.  Montet].19  Well,  then,  is  not  Uni- 
tarianism’s  place  rather  in  the  seminaries  of  the  ulemas  than  in 
the  Christian  colleges  of  the  Near  East? 

Unable  to  initiate  missions  themselves  Unitarians  minimize 
and  even  ridicule  the  mighty  movement  which  is  surely  trans¬ 
forming  Asia  and  Africa.  The  ethnic  religions  are  painted 
in  glowing  colors.  “The  cheery  Chinaman,”  wrote  Samuel 
Johnson,  the  Unitarian  hymn  writer,  “is  not  bent  like  a  grim 
theologian  over  his  mediaeval  creed;  he  is  erect  and  cheerful 


32 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


and  genial.”  His  belief  that  human  nature  is  essentially  good 
is  contrasted  with  dogmas  of  Semitic  origin  current  in  Chris¬ 
tianity.  “The  life  of  Confucius  was  perhaps  the  most  wonder¬ 
ful  success  on  record.  His  death,  too,  with  his  concluding 
words,  ‘It  is  time  for  me  to  die  after  a  long  life  spent  in  faith¬ 
ful  service  of  the  highest  practical  aims,’  is  more  pathetic  and 
more  attractive  than  the  cry  of  the  young  Jesus,  ‘It  is  finished.’ 
The  tide  of  race  tendency  sweeps  on  incapable  of  taking  cog¬ 
nizance  of  these  conceptions  of  a  fallen  nature  and  a  mediatorial 
salvation  through  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  .  .  .  Tens  of  thousands  of 
Bibles  and  millions  of  tracts  are  distributed  but  hardly  an 
instance  is  on  record  of  an  appeal  for  explanation  of  Scripture. 
The  tracts  distributed  by  thousands  at  the  competitive  examina¬ 
tions  are  apt  to  serve  for  wrapping  paper  in  the  market  of 
Macao.  Missionary  publications  are  scarcely  known  beyond  the 
little  circle  of  converts.  .  .  .  We  have  by  no  means  expressed 
our  sense  of  the  futility  of  this  business.  No  fetishism  on  earth 
compares  with  the  enormous  expenditures  of  money,  machinery, 
and  labor  in  printing  and  circulating  Bibles  among  heathen 
whose  utter  waste  of  them  is  fully  equal  to  the  supply.”20 

It  was  fifty  years  ago  that  the  Rev.  Samuel  Johnson  of 
Salem  wrote  this.  He  had  never  been  in  the  East  and  the 
great  efflorescence  which  has  broken  out  in  China  and  Korea 
and  India  since  then  was  in  its  budding  only.  President  Eliot 
had  better  opportunities  for  judgment  but  his  eyes  are  beetle- 
blind  with  prejudice.  He  learned  in  his  Eastern  jaunt  “that 
the  missionary  teaching  of  the  last  hundred  years  throughout 
the  East  takes  no  hold,  has  taken  no  hold  on  the  Oriental  mind 
and  for  just  the  same  reason  that  the  old-fashioned  dogmas, 
tenets  of  the  Christian  sects,  took  no  real  hold  on  the  minds  of 
our  fathers”21  and  his  alter  ego ,  Professor  Peabody  of  Harvard, 
after  a  similar  excursion  wrote  of  the  Chinese  and  Japanese, 
“They  have  been  familiar  for  ages  with  doctrines  of  incarna¬ 
tion,  resurrection  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  and  the  supernat¬ 
uralism  of  Christian  teaching  is  likely  to  seem  quite  insignifi¬ 
cant  to  minds  instructed  in  the  Shinto  worship  of  nature  and 


Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  33 


of  ancestors  or  the  vast  pantheon  and  voluminous  scriptures 
of  Buddhism.  A  system  of  Christian  theology  or  a  specialized 
type  of  Christian  ecclesiasticism  is  a  vain  thing  to  carry  to  the 
Far  East.”22 

So  speak  the  brave  theoreticians  of  a  missionless  church. 

Five-sixths  of  the  present  income  of  the  American  Unitarian 
Association  comes  from  endowments  which  amount  to  $3,397,- 
398.  Actual  donations  from  churches  and  individuals  in  1923 
totaled  $57,704  [from  the  wealthiest  Boston  churches — King’s 
Chapel  $1,260,  Arlington  Street  $1,886,  Brookline  First  Parish 
$1,585,  Second  Church  $750,  South  $900,  Church  of  Disciples 
$87].  This  $57,704  represents  the  year’s  contributions  [apart 
from  endowments]  of  American  Unitarianism  to  church  exten¬ 
sion,  church  erection,  missions  and  all  other  enterprises  of  the 
American  Unitarian  Association.  Its  chief  work  is  described 
by  John  Haynes  Holmes  as  “maintaining  old  Unitarian  churches 
whose  natural  lives  are  already  spent  and  building  new  Uni¬ 
tarian  churches  which  cannot  maintain  themselves.”23  The 
subsidized  “missions”  are  generally  among  those  who  need  them 
least,  self-respecting  Scandinavian  and  Icelandic  Lutherans 
[“the  founding  of  these  churches  is  a  part  of  the  romance  of 
missions,”  71,  Report  of  the  A.  U.  A.,  1923] ;  in  college  towns, 
Amherst,  Ithaca,  Ann  Arbor,  Urbana  and  five  others  for  the 
benefit  largely  of  non-Unitarian  students  and  “at  political  and 
commercial  capitals”  as  Albany,  Nashville,  Pittsburgh,  etc. 
There  is  also  a  Unitarian  work  [“of  a  definite  missionary 
value”]  at  Chautauqua,  of  many  years’  standing.* 

^University  pastors  at  the  state  universities  are  ordinarily  appointed 
to  shepherd  the  studying  youth  of  their  respective  denominations.  But 
there  are  few  Unitarian  young  people,  if  any,  in  many  of  these  schools. 
When  the  American  Unitarian  Association  announces  that  real  estate 
will  soon  be  needed  in  the  neighborhood  of  such  universities  as  those 
of  Ohio,  Texas,  Arizona,  Washington,  and  North  Dakota,  we  are  safe 
in  saying  that  its  main  objective  is  the  constituency  of  evangelical  young 
people.  C.R.  1911 ; 596.  When  it  also  announces  that  a  new  Unitarian 
church  has  been  gathered  at  Austin,  Texas,  the  seat  of  the  state  univer¬ 
sity  and  that  for  several  years  the  attention  of  the  missionary  board  in 
Boston  has  been  fixed  on  this  strategic  point,  we  know  pretty  well  what 
Unitarians  mean  by  “missions.”  C.R.  1916:356. 


34 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


What  Christians  understand  by  home  missions, — rescue  mis¬ 
sions,  schools  for  mountain  whites,  missions  among  ignorant 
Slavs  and  Italians,  among  Filipinos,  Porto  Ricans,  and  other 
dependent  peoples  are  non-existent.  “The  Unitarian  movement 
is  nearly  as  old  as  the  Methodist  and  older  than  the  Episcopal 
High  Church,”  writes  a  Unitarian  in  the  Christian  Register , 
“but  what  progress  has  it  made  in  converting  ordinary,  igno¬ 
rant,  commonplace  busy  people  from  worldliness  to  holiness? 
Much  is  said  of  the  orthodox  persons  who  become  Unitarians. 
Their  religious  character  was  formed  under  Orthodoxy.  .  .  . 
Social  reform  is  not  religion.  ...  As  a  denomination  we  ought 

Prof.  J.  F.  Shepherd  of  the  department  of  psychology  at  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Michigan,  an  active  member  of  the  Ann  Arbor  Unitarian 
church,  tells  us  without  embarrassment  or  circumlocution  that  “the  most 
vital  function  of  the  Unitarian  church  in  the  college  town  is  to  furnish 
a  satisfying  and  abiding  faith  to  those  students  whose  intellectual  awak¬ 
ening  is  cutting  them  loose  from  orthodoxy “Seats  of  learning  through¬ 
out  the  South  like  similar  institutions  in  the  Northern  states,”  writes.the 
Unitarian  minister  at  Dallas,  Texas,  “are  promising  fields  for  the  propa¬ 
gation  of  Unitarian  principles.  There  are  four  thousand  students  in 
the  University  of  Texas  at  Austin.  They  come  from  the  best  families 
and  in  good  time  after  returning  to  their  homes  and  taking  up  their 
duties  of  life  in  the  natural  order  of  things  will  be  leading  citizens  of 
their  respective  communities.  The  same  opportunity  to  further  the  cause 
of  Unitarianism  is  present  in  every  university  community ”  C.R.  1921: 
380. 

The  West  Side  Unitarian  church  has  been  built  near  Columbia  Uni¬ 
versity,  the  greatest  student  centre  in  the  world.  “Membership  will  be 
sought  from  among  the  fifty  thousand  students.  ...”  C.R.  1920:822. 
At  the  University  of  Iowa  Dr.  F.  C.  Doan  has  an  office  directly  opposite 
the  campus  so  that  students  can  drop  in  and  talk  with  him.  C.R.  1921: 
545.  The  Unitarian  Laymen’s  League  finances  it.  “Half  of  the  atten¬ 
dants  on  his  congregation  are  students.”  Dr.  Doan  is  a  “humanist”  as 
distinguished  from  a  theist  and  the  Unitarian  minister  at  the  gates  of 
the  University  of  Nebraska  is  said  to  entertain  similar  opinions.  “There 
is,”  reports  Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot,  “no  more  fertile  field  for  recruiting  than  the 
college  and  school  towns  of  New  England.  The  church  at  Burlington 
is  at  the  seat  of  the  University  of  Vermont  and  Colby  University  is  at 
Waterville.  The  University  of  Maine  is  near  Bangor  and  Norwich 
University  near  Montpelier.  The  Exeter  church  is  adjacent  to  Phillips 
Exeter  Academy.  At  Presque  Isle,  Castine,  and  Farmington  are  the 
normal  schools  that  supply  the  teachers  for  the  schools  of  Maine.”  C.R. 
1919:1162. 

T.  J.  Roberts  writes  from  Chautauqua  (C.R.  1920:964),  “I  am  so 
pleased  with  the  leavening  process  going  on  there  that  I  should  like  our 
Unitarian  people  to  continue  with  the  other  denominations  in  this  very 
important  educational  work.  Mr.  Badger  is  right  that  the  Unitarians 


Christian  Missions  and  Unitarian  Missions  35 


to  have  missions  to  teach  religion  to  the  benighted,  in  the  city, 
in  the  country,  on  the  frontier,  among  the  immigrants  and  in 
foreign  lands;  not  to  start  Unitarian  churches  among  the 
orthodox  but  to  start  personal  religion  among  the  irreligious.”24 

But  they  never  will  until  they  make  their  peace  with  the 
Eternal  Christ. 

have  at  Chautauqua  one  of  the  finest  opportunities  offered  in  this 
country.” 

Prof.  C.  R.  Bowen  in  like  vein:  “There  are  at  Chautauqua  ten 
thousand  people  and  upwards  on  any  one  day  during  the  high  season. 
They  are  all  serious,  earnest  people  seeking  light.  They  are  religious 
■ people .  They  are  a  picked  group  of  precisely  the  people  we  would 
choose  as  promising  hearers  of  our  word.  They  go  by  our  open  door 
daily,  practically  every  one  of  them.  The  missionary  opportunity  is 
unique .”  C.R.  1911:641.  Also  on  976:  “The  majority  of  these  attendants 
[at  Unitarian  services]  are  not  Unitarians.  They  are  often  attending 
a  Unitarian  service  for  the  first  time  in  their  lives.  .  .  .  Rarely  is  any¬ 
one  disputatious ;  more  common  are  genuine  conversions.  .  .  .  Many 
join  the  correspondence  Church  of  Souls  or  get  in  touch  with  the  Post 
Office  Mission.” 


REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  II 

1.  The  Unitarian  Principles  (tract).  2.  Our  Day,  Vol.  1,  29  quotes  C.R. 
Nov.  17,  1887.  3.  Clay  Macauley,  Memories  and  Memorials,  112,  504.  4.  Our 
Day,  Vol.  4,  299.  5.  Macauley,  op.  cit.  494.  6.  Macauley,  501.  7.  Macauley, 
The  Unitarian  Mission  in  Japan.  8.  Hawkes,  Unitarian  Mission  Work  in  Non- 
Christian  Countries,  22.  9.  C.R.  1915:923.  10.  C.R.  1913:1146.  11.  C.R.  1911: 

784.  12.  C.R.  1913:519  and  1917:95.  13.  Our  Common  Inheritances.  14.  C.R. 

1910:634.  15.  C.R.  1913:465.  16.  C.R.  1911:618.  17.  C.R.  1913:1074. 

18.  C.R.  1920:529.  19.  C.R.  1913:95 6.  20.  S.  Johnson,  Oriental  Religions: 

China,  57,  855,  849.  21.  C.R.  1914:439.  22.  C.R.  1914:59.  23.  C.R.  1912:254. 
24.  C.R.  1924:180. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  GOOD  WORKS  OF  UNITARIANISM 

The  devotion  of  the  Unitarian  denomination  to  good 
works  seems  to  be  its  chief  distinction  from  other  denomi¬ 
nations. — President  Eliot  at  the  Ninety-ninth  annual  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association. 


NITARIANS  have  never  taken  any  interest  in  the  busi¬ 
ness  called  carrying  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,”  says 
the  President  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association. 

We  have  found  overwhelming  need  for  our  limited  resources 
in  work  that  lies  nearer  at  hand.”1 

What  has  Unitarianism  accomplished  at  home? 

In  the  way  of  citizenship  and  philanthropy  much.  One 
recalls  its  gracious  services  in  the  Sanitary  Commission  during 
the  Civil  War  [H.  W.  Bellows,  Jeffries  Wyman],  its  leader¬ 
ship  in  civil  service  reform  [G.  W.  Curtis,  Dorman  B.  Eaton], 
in  the  women’s  movement  [Miss  Anthony,  the  Blackwells, 
Mrs.  Stanton],  in  the  peace  movement  [E.  E.  Hale,  Edwin 
Ginn,  the  Meads]  and  pre-eminently  in  the  antislavery  move¬ 
ment.  It  has  furnished  certain  notably  useful  citizens  to  the 
nation.  One  thinks  of  that  fine  and  competent  social  worker 
Mrs.  Josephine  Shaw  Lowell,  of  the  services  which  Gen.  Bar- 
low  rendered  in  the  fight  on  the  Tweed  ring,  of  Peter  Cooper’s 
philanthropies,  of  the  Baldwins,  father  and  son,  of  Alfred  T. 
White,  pioneer  of  tenement-house  reform.  Of  these  personali¬ 
ties  Unitarians  are  justly  proud.  “Unitarianism  has  been  the 
characteristic  exponent  of  the  American  theory  ‘by  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them,’  ”  a  Unitarian  minister  has  lately  declared.2 
The  claim  is  a  large  one  and  at  least  applies  to  such  rare  souls 
as  Samuel  J.  May  and  S.  G.  Howe  and  Mrs.  Lowell  and 
Dorothea  Dix.  President  Eliot  makes  similar  affirmations. 


36 


The  Good  Works  of  TJ nitarianism 


37 


“The  Unitarian  faith  leads  directly  to  broad  social  effort  to 
promote  human  welfare.  This  is  a  natural  issue  of  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  faith.  We  have  not  been  chiefly  concerned  about  per¬ 
sonal  salvation.  We  have  taken  to  heart  the  command  to  love 
one's  neighbor  as  one's  self."3 

If  President  Eliot  had  a  wider  knowledge  of  the  life  of 
American  churches  he  would  hardly  care  to  lay  claim  to  any 
primacy  in  good  works  for  his  own  household.  It  should  also 
be  pointed  out  that  Unitarianism  has  been  indebted  for  its 
leadership  in  social  movements  largely  to  the  churches  which 
are  “concerned  with  personal  salvation.”  That  its  pulpit  lead¬ 
ers  have  in  large  proportion  come  from  these  churches  is  often 
remarked  by  Unitarians  themselves.*  Hardly  less  notable  this 
other  obligation.  Second  generation  idealism  seems  not  alto¬ 
gether  common  in  the  Unitarian  body.f  Its  idealists  are  far 
too  frequently  naturalized  into  it.  Dr.  Bellows  once  remarked, 
“Liberalism  cannot  break  the  connection  which  history  has 
established  between  [it  and  evangelicalism]  nor  get  rid  of  the 
blessed  inheritance  of  faith  and  experience  delivered  to  her  by 
the  church  of  the  last  centuries.”4 

*The  graduates  of  the  three  Unitarian  divinity  schools  “entering  the 
Unitarian  ministry  in  any  one  year  do  not  suffice  to  take  the  places  of 
the  ministers  who  die  during  the  same  period.  It  is  still  true  that  our 
churches  depend  for  leadership  chiefly  upon  ministers  who  have  been 
trained  in  schools  that  represent  the  traditions  of  orthodoxy.  Many  of 
the  men  who  come  to  us  from  other  fellowships  are  of  the  highest 
quality  but  the  Unitarian  churches  can  take  no  satisfaction  in  the  situa¬ 
tion  until  they  cease  to  be  parasitic  in  this  all  important  matter  of  minis¬ 
terial  leadership.” — Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot,  Annual  Report  of  A.  U.A.  1923:32. 

t“The  genius  of  our  denominational  life  seems  to  run  to  the  practical 
application  of  religion  to  social  and  national  issues.  .  .  .  But  at  least 
three-fourths  of  the  religion  we  apply  was  generated  in  orthodox  com¬ 
munions.  If  our  source  of  supply  from  other  denominations  were  cut 
off  we  should  be  extinct  in  a  generation.  IV e  should  have  no  religion 
to  apply.  If  we  are  to  win  and  hold  the  respect  of  America  we  must 
rediscover  for  ourselves  the  springs  of  power  and  inspiration  and  learn 
to  generate  our  own  spiritual  resources.  ...  I  have  worshipped  with 
many  groups  of  religious  liberals  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  and 
have  often  been  amazed  to  find  that  they  have  completely  lost  the 
power  of  intensive  devotion.  Many  of  our  meetings  are  held  without 
prayer.  .  .  .  Our  people  are  spendthrifts  living  on  the  capital  of  the 
past,  on  the  prayers  of  generations  departed.” — E.  J.  Bowden,  C.R. 
1924:156. 


38 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


This  was  more  obvious  a  hundred  years  ago  than  at  present. 
That  Abou  Ben  Adhem  of  old  Boston,  Dr.  Joseph  Tucker- 
man,  was  one  of  the  seven  “ministers  at  large”  [three  Uni¬ 
tarian,  four  Evangelical]  who  cared  for  the  poor  of  the  city 
in  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century.  His  careful  and 
intelligent  records  of  poverty  and  unemployment  were  the 
beginning  of  systematic  charity  in  its  modern  form  and  his 
personal  service  to  the  poor  a  thing  even  more  attractive  than 
system.  His  life  fed  on  the  words  of  Christ.  “The  New 
Testament,”  he  writes  in  a  letter,  “as  often  as  I  open  it  or  think 
of  it  becomes  to  me  glad  tidings  of  great  joy.  I  cannot  think 
of  Jesus  but  with  the  sentiment,  ‘Thanks  be  to  God  for  his 
unspeakable  gift.’  ”  Years  after  his  death  his  copy  of  White’s 
Diatessarion  [a  harmony  of  the  Gospels]  was  found  with  the 
words  on  the  fly-leaf,  “This  has  been  my  daily  manual.  It  has 
been  to  me  for  light  and  strength  and  solace  and  peace.  When 
at  home  it  has  long  been  my  custom  to  read  it  every  morning 
that  I  might  take  a  lesson  from  my  Master  before  I  went  to 
the  ordinary  duties  of  the  day  and  when  I  have  traveled  it  has 
been  my  guide  and  my  treasury  on  the  water  and  on  the  land. 
.  .  .  I  account  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus,  my  Lord.”5 

There  is  the  authentic  note  of  Christ’s  own. 

Dorothea  Dix,  the  great  friend  of  the  insane,  who  laid  the 
foundation  for  their  institutional  relief  in  the  United  States, 
was  of  evangelical  parentage.  Of  her  inner  life  her  biographer 
says, 

“With  her  the  day  always  began  with  four  or  five  o’clock  in 
the  morning  when  on  rising  she  secretly  set  apart  the  first  hour 
for  her  religious  devotions.  In  the  most  hurried  time  of  work 
or  travel  she  would  never  intermit  this  habit,  feeling  that  when 
frayed  in  spirit  through  pressure  of  care  the  virtue  had  gone 
out  of  her,  she  must  utterly  faint  and  utterly  fail  but  for  refuge 
in  this  mount  of  prayer.  God  was  her  present  help  in  time  of 
trouble.  .  .  .  Religion  was  the  breath  of  her  life.  .  .  .  Those 
who  heard  her  when  she  would  call  together  the  nurses  in  a 


The  Good  JV orks  of  U  nitarianism 


39 


new  asylum  to  speak  to  them  about  their  sacred  duties,  say  they 
never  listened  to  such  moving  speech  from  human  lips.  Her 
auditory  would  be  wrought  to  mingled  tears  and  exaltation  as 
though  in  their  merciful  vocation  the  divine  privilege  of  the 
very  call  of  Jesus  to  be  eyes  to  the  blind  and  feet  to  the  lame 
had  descended  to  them  from  out  of  the  heavens.”6 

Garrison  was  son  of  a  Baptist  mother  who  evangelized  in 
the  Baltimore  shoe  factory  where  she  earned  her  bread  and 
he  himself  was  as  a  young  man  a  convinced  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tian.7  The  early  numbers  of  the  Liberator  were  full  of  Biblical 
language  and  spirit.  When  later  he  was  charged  with  infidelity 
he  wrote :  “I  esteem  the  Holy  Scriptures  above  all  other  books 
in  the  universe  and  always  appeal  to  the  law  and  the  testimony 
to  prove  all  my  peculiar  doctrines.  I  believe  in  an  indwelling 
Christ  and  in  his  righteousness  alone.  I  glory  in  nothing  here 
below  save  in  Christ  and  in  Him  crucified.  I  believe  all  the 
works  of  the  devil  are  to  be  destroyed  and  our  Lord  is  to  reign 
from  sea  to  sea  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth ;  and  I  profess  to 
have  passed  from  death  unto  life  and  know  by  happy  experience 
that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit.”8 

Channing  was  as  a  boy  converted  in  a  revival  in  a  Congre¬ 
gational  church  in  New  London,  Conn.9  Theodore  Parker 
says  of  his  mother  in  a  recently  published  letter  [C.  R.,  April 
10,  1924]  :  “She  was  a  woman  of  rare  piety  who  took  pains 
to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  character  I  was  to  build  upon  the 
Rock  of  Ages.  .  .  .  Few  men  have  had  so  good  a  religious 
training  as  I  ...  I  was  brought  up  on  the  Bible.”  Edward 
Everett  Hale’s  connection  with  Puritanism  was  not  immediate 
but  both  his  grandfathers  were  Puritan  ministers,  Enoch  Hale  of 
Westhampton  being  spoken  of  by  him  as  “dreadfully  orthodox.” 
His  own  mother’s  Unitarianism  was  of  a  type  that  could  be 
nourished  by  Jeremy  Taylor’s  Holy  Living  and  Dying,  her 
favorite  religious  book.10  The  remarkable  social  work  Dr. 
F.  D.  Huntington  did  in  the  South  Church  as  Dr.  Hale’s 
predecessor  [for  it  was  he  who  organized  in  the  southern  wards 


40 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  Boston  the  Provident  Association  which  gradually  extended 
to  the  rest  of  the  city]  is  clearly  a  fruit  of  the  lofty  Christian 
character  of  a  mother  “who  was  nurtured  under  the  influence 
and  within  the  fold  of  the  Trinitarian  church.”11 

John  Pierpont  was  brought  up  a  Calvinist  and  attended  in 
his  early  days  the  ministry  of  Lyman  Beecher.  Noah  Worcester, 
pioneer  advocate  of  international  peace,  was  in  early  life  a  Con¬ 
gregational  home  missionary  in  New  Hampshire  and  never 
moved  far  from  what  that  implied  theologically.  Adin  Ballou, 
“practical  Christian  Socialist  of  the  Hopedale  Community,” 
was  bred  a  Disciple.  Both  Lydia  Maria  Child*  and  Samuel 
G.  Howe  were  bom  before  the  rise  of  Unitarianism  and  hence 
were  presumably  bred  in  the  Puritan  discipline.  Dr.  Howe 
when  remonstrating  because  there  “was  no  Bible,  no  prayer, 
no  praise”  in  a  Unitarian  service,  speaks  of  his  early  supersti¬ 
tious  regard  for  the  Bible  ( Journals  and  Letters,  Vol.  12:471). 
Julia  Ward  Howe’s  father  was  an  Episcopalian  of  Puritan 
type,  one  of  the  founders  of  New  York  University  and  a  fore¬ 
most  promoter  of  church  building  in  the  then  distant  West; 
also  president  of  the  first  temperance  society  ever  organized 
in  America.  It  is  not  hard  to  see  where  his  daughter’s  humani- 
tarianism  and  interest  in  education  had  its  springs.  A.  Bronson 
Alcott  also  came  out  of  Episcopalianism. 

William  Cullen  Bryant,  Free  Soiler  and  opponent  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  was  brought  up  in  the  Presbyterian  faith 
and  in  later  life  divided  his  connections  between  Presbyterianism 
and  Unitarianism.  “No  one,”  says  John  Bigelow,  his  biog¬ 
rapher,  “ever  recognized  more  completely  or  more  devoutly  the 
divinity  of  Christ.”12  The  Massachusetts  war  governor,  John 
A.  Andrew,  was  of  evangelical  parentage;  also  Horace  Mann. 
Frank  Sanborn  was  brought  up  among  the  Congregationalists 
of  Hampton  Falls,  N.  H.  Francis  W.  Bird  was  in  early  life 
as  Congregationalist  active  in  Boston  city  missions.  Theodore 
D.  Weld  was  converted  under  Finney’s  preaching  and  trained 

*“She  was  the  outgrowth  of  New  England  theology,  traditions  and 
habits, — the  finest  fruit  of  these.” — Quoted  by  Wendell  Phillips  in 
Letters  of  Lydia  Maria  Child ,  263. 


The  Good  Works  of  Unitarianism 


41 


as  a  Congregationalist  minister.  Susan  B.  Anthony  was  of 
Quaker  parentage,  Mrs.  Stanton  of  Presbyterian.  Antoinette 
Brown  Blackwell  was  a  Congregational  preacher  educated  in 
Oberlin.  Lucretia  Mott,  closely  identified  with  Unitarianism, 
was  brought  up  an  evangelical  Friend.  Mary  A.  Livermore 
was  baptized  and  trained  in  the  First  Baptist  church,  Boston; 
Lucy  Stone  among  the  Congregationalists  delivering  the  first 
plea  for  women’s  suffrage  ever  made  in  her  brother’s  church  at 
Gardner,  Mass.  Col.  George  H.  Putnam,  leader  in  New  York 
city  reform  movements,  was  in  early  life  member  of  the  First 
Baptist  church,  New  York. 

George  T.  Angell,  leader  in  the  movement  for  the  humane 
treatment  of  animals,  was  son  of  a  Baptist  minister.  Samuel 
J.  Barrows  has  described  the  Baptist  meeting-house  of  his  early 
years  and  this  background  goes  far  to  explain  his  later  useful¬ 
ness.  His  wife  and  co-worker  was,  before  marriage,  a  Congre¬ 
gational  missionary  in  India.  Charles  G.  Ames  before  he 
pioneered  associated  charities  in  Germantown  as  a  Unitarian 
wrote  the  early  state  prohibition  law  of  Minnesota  and  edited 
the  first  antislavery  paper  of  the  state  as  a  Free  Baptist  minis¬ 
ter.13  Jasper  L.  Douthit,  of  whom  Unitarians  speak  as  “a 
second  Oberlin,”  was  Methodist  bred,  as  was  Dr.  Robert 
Collyer,  the  patriot  leader  of  Civil  War  days  in  Chicago.  Dr. 
Edwin  D.  Mead,  prominent  in  the  peace  movement,  was  of  a 
Methodist  family  and  studied  for  the  Episcopal  ministry.  The 
Rev.  C.  F.  Dole,  also  active  in  the  cause  of  international  peace, 
came  out  of  a  Congregational  manse  as  did  Charles  H.  Lever- 
more.  Owen  Love  joy,  opponent  of  child  labor,  was  once  a 
Methodist  minister.  Thomas  Mott  Osborne,  prison  reformer, 
is  of  Quaker  family.  William  Pryor  Letchworth,  the  founder 
of  the  Craig  and  Sonyea  colonies  for  epileptics,  was  born  into 
Quakerism  in  1823.  Edwin  Ginn,  A.  D.  Mayo,  and  Starr 
King  emigrated  from  Universalism  into  Unitarianism. 

The  limb  which  Channing  sawed  off  from  the  trunk  of  New 
England  Christianity  had  much  fruit  on  it.  It  was  the  same 
fruit  as  that  which  ripened  on  the  other  branches  and  was  nour- 


42 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


ished  by  the  same  Puritan  taproot.  These  reformers  and 
philanthropists  were  of  the  same  great  family  that  produced 
H.  W.  Beecher  and  Wendell  Phillips  and  Elihu  Burritt  and 
Elijah  Lovejoy  and  John  Brown  and  Mrs.  Stowe  and  Charles 
Loring  Brace  and  Horace  Bushnell  and  William  E.  Dodge 
and  Mark  Hopkins  and  Alice  Freeman  Palmer  and  Timothy 
Dwight  and  Mary  Lyon  and  Frances  Willard  and  Neal  Dow 
and  O.  O.  Howard  and  General  Armstrong  and  Cyrus  Hamlin 
and  Leonard  Bacon  and  Grace  Dodge  and  Graham  Taylor  and 
C.  C.  Crittenton. 

It  must  always  be  remembered  in  making  any  attempt  to 
evaluate  the  philanthropic  activities  of  Boston  Unitarianism 
that  its  social  and  financial  control  of  the  city  during  most  of 
the  nineteenth  century  was  fairly  complete  and  its  economic 
resources  very  great  indeed.  In  1850  Boston’s  assessed  wealth 
exceeded  that  of  New  York.  It  was  the  greatest  shipping  port 
of  the  country.  Indeed  William  Gray  was  the  largest  ship 
owner  in  the  world,  Wm.  F.  Weld  and  Co.  and  Ezra  Weston 
following  closely  after.  Great  fortunes  were  built  up  in  the 
China  trade  by  the  Russells  and  Perkinses,  the  Forbeses,  the 
Waleses,  the  Coolidges,  the  Lows,  the  Sturgises  and  the  Cush¬ 
ings;  in  the  Singapore  and  Penang  trade  by  the  Tuckermans; 
in  the  India  trade  by  the  Wigglesworths  and  Tudors;  by 
Augustus  Hemenway  in  the  Valparaiso  trade  and  in  Cuban 
sugar. 

The  Thorndikes  and  Crowninshields  early  profited  by  pri¬ 
vateering  to  get  together  large  properties.  The  Amorys  inher¬ 
ited  much  of  the  great  Green  estate  made  by  starting  plantations 
in  Demerara,  stocking  with  slaves,  and  selling  out  at  a  profit. 
For  two  generations  the  ground  rents  of  Boston  came  in  steady 
flow  into  the  pockets  of  Unitarian  families, — the  Shaws,  Park- 
mans,  Searses,  Welds,  Brookses  and  Inches.  Fortunes  were 
made  by  the  rise  of  values, — on  Beacon  Hill  by  the  Joys,  the 
Masons,  and  H.  G.  Otis. 

In  1881  there  were  sixty-one  national  banks  in  Boston.  In 
the  great  banking  firms  of  Lee,  Higginson  and  Co.  and  Kidder, 


The  Good  Works  of  U nitarianism 


43 


Peabody  and  Co.  have  been  grouped  such  representative  and 
intermarried  Unitarian  families  as  the  Lees,  Jacksons,  Cabots, 
Lowells,  Higginsons,  Kidders,  Thayers,  Winslows  and  Pea- 
bod  ys.  The  cotton  manufacture  of  New  England  has  enriched 
the  Lowells,  Appletons,  Amorys,  Coolidges,  Walcotts  and  Law¬ 
rences.  The  Shaws  and  Bigelows  and  Agassizes  have  drawn 
great  incomes  from  Calumet  and  Hecla  and  Anaconda  copper 
mines. 

Railroads,  too,  have  contributed  to  Boston  wealth — the 
Union  Pacific  built  by  the  Ameses  and  C.  F.  Adams,  the 
Michigan  Central  by  the  Forbeses  and  Thayers.  The  Burling¬ 
ton  and  the  Atchison  systems  were  both  financed  and  con¬ 
structed  by  Boston  promoters  and  the  Mexican  Central  to  a 
certain  extent.  In  1880  Boston  capitalists  held  340  millions 
in  securities  of  these  Western  roads  and  120  millions  in  the 
railroads  centering  in  their  own  city.  To  recount  the  extent 
of  Boston  investments  in  New  England  industries,  power,  trac¬ 
tion,  and  gas  companies,  Chicago  real  estate  and  office  buildings, 
General  Electric,  United  Shoe  Machinery,  American  Tel.  and 
Tel.,  Southern  cotton  mills,  and  what  not,  would  carry  us  far 
afield. 

Now  this  wealth  was  for  two  generations  preponderating^ 
in  Unitarian  hands  and  is  probably  to  a  certain  extent  still  so. 
One  would  have  thought  that  a  little  of  the  great  fortunes 
made  in  the  Asiatic  trade  might  have  returned  to  the  East  for 
educational  and  hospital  pioneering.  Not  a  rupee  ever  did. 
Almost  as  little  did  the  continuous  incomes  from  western  mines 
and  railroads  help  in  the  task  of  planting  churches  and  schools 
and  colleges  in  the  West.  The  apothegm  “Unitarianism  stands 
for  the  fatherhood  of  God,  the  brotherhood  of  man  and  the 
neighborhood  of  Boston”  is  literally  true  in  its  last  term.  These 
opulent  Unitarians  adorned  their  city  as  their  residences,  built 
its  art  museum,  financed  its  orchestra,  endowed  its  university, 
library,  and  general  hospital,  and  gave  considerable  sums  to 
charities.  The  public  spirited  traditions  of  Puritanism  survived 
in  them  to  this  degree.  When  one  however  looks  for  a  rich 


44 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


institutional  life  in  Boston  under  the  name  and  fostering  care 
of  Unitarianism  one  is  on  the  whole  disappointed.  The  year¬ 
book  of  the  Unitarian  Association  for  1924  under  the  title  of 
philanthropic  agencies  has  four  items  which  represent  the  actual 
survival  of  formal  denominational  charity  after  a  century  of 
exceptional  opportunity. 

The  Boston  Young  Men’s  Christian  Union  has  an  admir¬ 
able  summer  outing  department  carried  on  at  an  expense  of 
$22,711  in  1924.  Its  general  work  for  young  men  is  excellent 
if  not  very  extensive.  The  Children’s  Mission  to  Children 
expends  $63,333  (1922)  of  which  $14,131  comes  from  dona¬ 
tions,  the  rest  from  investments  and  other  sources.  The  North 
End  Union  is  a  social  center  with  sewing  classes,  school  of 
printing,  baths,  dances,  debating  clubs.  At  the  Norfolk  House 
Centre  there  is  extensive  social  work  for  which  Unitarian 
churches  are  chiefly  responsible  and  a  less  extensive  settlement 
work  at  Hale  House. 

Much  more  than  this  I  cannot  find. 

Charles  F.  Barnard,  the  most  effective  social  worker  of  Bos¬ 
ton’s  nineteenth  century,  was  the  real  initiator  of  the  institu¬ 
tional  church  and  the  god-father  of  the  Boston  childhood  of  his 
day.  But  Boston  Unitarianism  with  all  its  wealth  never  prop¬ 
erly  backed  him  and  when  the  Old  South  [Congregational] 
church  began  a  similar  work  he  wrote  with  a  touch  of  bitter¬ 
ness, 

“The  embarrassments,  debts,  and  deficiencies  of  more  than 
thirty-two  years  occur  to  us  with  force  and  chastened  delight 
as  we  observe  the  different  and  better  fortune  of  our  noble 
compeer.  .  .  .  We  know  of  no  martyrdom  to  compare  with  that 
which  waits  upon  the  sight  of  human  suffering  without  ade¬ 
quate  and  perpetual  means  in  one’s  hands  for  its  relief.  .  .  . 
The  Old  South  is  rich  to  be  sure.  ...  So  are  other  churches, 
other  communities  that  we  might  name.”14 

The  greatest  of  all  Unitarian  philanthropists,  Dr.  S.  G. 
Howe,  made  the  same  complaint.  His  work  for  the  blind 
seems  to  have  been  constantly  in  financial  want.  “There  were 


The  Good  JV orks  of  U nitarianism 


45 


times  when  he  had  to  put  forth  all  his  powers  to  obtain  the 
money  needed  to  carry  on  the  work.  In  1858  he  wrote:  ‘The 
annual  expenses  of  this  institution  have  been  for  many  years 
greater  than  the  income.’  ” 15 

In  the  seventies  of  the  last  century  there  was  a  Methodist 
hot-gospeller  and  foe  of  rum  who  with  great  hardihood  bought 
James  Freeman  Clark’s  old  church  on  Indiana  Place  from  its 
Unitarian  owners.  The  price,  $20,000,  he  toilsomely  collected 
by  lecturing  throughout  New  England.  During  his  life  time 
he  carried  on  his  church  single-handed  and  at  death  willed  it 
to  the  Unitarian  Benevolent  Fraternity  of  Churches,  hoping 
that  they  would  develop  some  ministry  there.16  For  years  it 
languished.  Then  Methodism  resumed  control  and  today  there 
is  in  the  Church  of  All  Nations  with  its  attendant  industries 
the  busiest  social  hive  in  Boston. 

There  have  been,  as  Unitarians  rightly  explain,  important 
Unitarian  contributions  to  the  general  charitable  work  of  the 
city.  The  Associated  Charities,  the  Perkins  Institute  for  the 
Blind,  the  McLean  Asylum,  the  General  Hospital,  the  Boston 
Provident  Association  were  largely  of  Unitarian  promotion  and 
have  no  doubt  benefited  from  Unitarian  wills.  Calculations 
in  the  Memorial  History  of  Boston  (Vol.  4:667)  of  gifts  to 
public  charity  from  1800  to  1845  come  to  $4,739,293.  This 
represents  the  gifts  of  all  citizens.  From  the  same  source  (669) 
we  get  material  which  may  serve  as  basis  of  denominational 
comparison. 

From  1825  to  1881  Unitarians  expended  about  $1,500,000 
of  which  $500,000  came  from  Boston  through  the  American 
Unitarian  Association  and  three  other  Unitarian  societies.  The 
receipts  of  the  American  Board  for  substantially  the  same  period 
from  Boston  alone  were  about  $2,000,000  and  the  American 
Board  was  but  one,  if  the  greatest,  of  the  Congregational 
organized  interests. 

When  one  recalls  that  the  Unitarian  defection  carried  off  not 
only  the  church  and  educational  plant  but  also  the  wealth  of 
Eastern  Massachusetts  these  figures  are  significant. 


46 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


The  Boston  Federation  of  Churches  prints  the  financial  sta¬ 
tistics  of  the  churches  of  Greater  Boston  in  its  Bulletin ,  April, 
1923. 


Percent- 

Out- 

ages  of 

Com- 

Parish 

side 

Bene  vo- 

Number  of  Churches 

muni- 

Ex- 

Be- 

lences  to 

Totals 

cants 

penses 

nevo- 

Parish 

lences 

Ex- 

penses 

Baptist,  101  . 

.41,319 

$786,230 

$416,965 

53% 

$1,203,195 

Congregationalist,  127. 

.49,299 

963,289 

485,438 

50% 

1,448,727 

Episcopalian,  96 . 

.36,637 

900,434 

284,472 

31% 

1,184,906 

Methodist,  101 . 

.31,344 

450,074 

313,357 

70% 

763,431 

Unitarian,  56  . 

.21,986 

388,616 

101,319 

26% 

489,935 

The  per  capita  gifts  for  benevolence  are:  Baptist,  $10,  Con¬ 
gregational,  $9.80,  Episcopalian,  $7.07,  Methodist,  $9.99,  and 
Unitarian,  $4.60.* 

Has  the  wealth  of  Boston  Unitarianism  given  us  large  phil¬ 
anthropic  foundations  like  the  Peabody  Fund,  the  Slater  Fund, 
the  Jeanes  Fund,  the  Phelps-Stokes  Foundation,  the  Sage  Foun¬ 
dation,  the  General  Education  Board,  the  Carnegie  Founda¬ 
tions?  Yes,  one:  the  World  Peace  Foundation,  whose  founder, 
Mr.  Ginn,  came  to  Unitarianism  from  another  church.  Have 
there  been  in  its  membership  really  large-scale  givers  such  as 
the  New  York  Presbyterian  group,  Anson  G.  Phelps,  Wm.  E. 

*The  budget  for  benevolences  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  New 
York,  was  in  1924,  $102,021.  This  was  for  home  and  foreign  missions, 
education,  boys’  clubs,  hospital  fund,  day  nurseries,  etc.  It  amounts 
to  somewhat  more  than  the  fifty-six  Unitarian  churches  of  Greater 
Boston  together  contributed  to  benevolences  in  the  preceding  year.  The 
average  annual  benevolences  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church 
for  the  last  five  years  were  $134,038.  This  all  passed  through  the  church 
treasury  and  does  not  include  the  large  contributions  of  members  through 
other  channels. 

The  recent  Unitarian  endowment  drive  which  brought  in  something 
under  two  and  a  half  millions  in  three  years  [i.  e.,  $800,000  yearly]  is, 
as  far  as  I  can  find,  unique  in  the  history  of  Unitarianism.  But  the  Sev¬ 
enth  Day  Adventists  in  1923  alone  raised  nine  millions  for  religious  pur¬ 
poses  [$41.45  per  capita].  Of  this  $3,224,000  was  for  foreign  missions 
and  of  this  again  $1,392,000  came  out  of  the  Sabbath  schools.  Chiesa 
fregante  chiesa  pagante!  The  membership  of  the  Adventist  and  Unita¬ 
rian  bodies  is  approximately  the  same.  The  Adventists  have  no  wealth. 
This  represents  their  normal  yearly  giving.  They  are  the  ones  to  turn  to 
if  one  wants  a  high  standard  of  giving. 


The  Good  Works  of  U hitarianism 


47 


Dodge,  John  S.  Kennedy,  D.  Willis  James,  Morris  K.  Jesup, 
John  Crosby  Brown  and  the  rest?  Have  there  been  Boston 
Unitarians  who  have  literally  stripped  themselves  of  their  mil¬ 
lions  as  D.  K.  Pearson  did  for  Christian  education  or  as  John 
Center  Baldwin  did  in  an  earlier  day?  Or  in  humbler  circles 
does  one  hear  of  Unitarian  “tithers”  or  of  anything  correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  sacrificial  giving  which  brings,  one  knows  not  whence, 
$600,000  annually  to  the  work  of  the  Christian  and  Missionary 
Alliance  ? 

Ungracious  questions,  but  how  otherwise  than  by  asking 
them  can  one  test  the  truth  of  utterances  such  as  the  fol¬ 
lowing  ? 

"Unitarian  views  of  God  and  man  are  more  effective  than 
any  other  toward  right  living,  good  works,  public  spirit.”  C.  W. 
Eliot  to  the  Hawthorne  Club,  Bowdoin  College.17  "We  can 
without  confusion  submit  the  record  of  the  contributions  Uni¬ 
tarians  have  made  to  the  reforms  and  charities  which  bless 
modern  life.”  C.  G.  Ames.13  “Let  us  in  all  modesty  boldly 
suggest  that  the  fundamental  idea  of  our  churches  is  unique  as 
compared  with  any  other  religious  organization  .  .  .  the  historic 
religions  and  churches  have  never  been  directed  with  singleness 
of  aim  toward  the  actual  realization  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
this  world.”  C.  F.  Dole.19  Julian  C.  Jaynes  writes:  " Christian¬ 
ity  primarily  aimed  to  improve  the  social  life  of  humanity.  .  .  . 
Now  U Hitarianism  claims  to  be  the  direct  heir  of  this  beneficent 
unpulse.  .  .  .  They  are  ever  ready  with  hand  and  purse  to  serve 
their  fellowmen.  .  .  .  They  stand  in  the  front  rank  of  those  who 
are  endeavoring  to  secure  for  men  the  widest  culture,  the  sanest 
philanthropy,  and  complete  justice.”20  A  correspondent  in  the 
Christian  Register  ( 1915  :  343)  writes:  “We  are  a  race  of  phil¬ 
anthropists  giving  millions  annually  to  every  kind  of  beneficent 
or  preventive  agency .”  The  Rev.  Dr.  Sunderland:  "There  are 
no  people  in  the  world  that  give  more  generously  for  schools 
than  Unitarians.”21  " Unitarians *  wealth /'  we  are  told  by  Dr. 
E.  A.  Horton,  “has  flowed  into  the  church  treasuries  of  all  de¬ 
nominations.  Hardly  one  good  enterprise  has  failed  to  elicit 


48 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


response  from  our  laity  even  to  the  detriment  of  our  own 
financial  welfare,”22  M.  J.  Savage  declares  that,  “Unitarianism 
indicates  a  growth  of  the  human  heart,  a  higher  manifestation 
of  that  humanity  which  we  call  specifically  humane,  tenderness, 
pity,  compassion,  love,  sensitiveness  to  that  which  is  right,  to 
that  which  is  just;”23  and  the  Rev.  W.  I.  Lawrence  in 
a  similar  lyrical  flight  describes  Unitarianism  as  “the  flower¬ 
ing  of  Christianity and  the  heart  of  both  Christianity 
and  Unitarianism  to  be  the  words  of  Jesus,  “I  am  come 
that  they  might  have  life  and  that  they  might  have  it  more 
abundantly.”*24 

I  cannot  find  that  Boston  Unitarianism  has  either  pioneered 
or  financed  education  in  the  country  at  large  to  the  extent 
which  is  often  supposed.  Certainly  it  has  given  generously  to 
Harvard  where  its  own  boys  have  had  their  schooling.  Outside 
Massachusetts  two  educational  institutions  have  received  their 
largess.  Washington  University,  St.  Louis,  was  established 
under  the  lead  of  Dr.  W.  G.  Eliot,  a  Unitarian  minister  of 
that  city.  Most  of  the  funds  were  locally  raised,  chiefly  in 
his  church.  Two  Boston  subscriptions,  one  of  $47,000  from 
Nathaniel  Thayer,  the  other  of  $40,000  from  Mrs.  Hemenway, 
are  to  be  noted,25 

Antioch  College,  Ohio,  was,  as  its  name  suggests,  founded 
by  the  “Christian  Church.”  It  had  at  the  start  a  checkered 
financial  history  and  was  finally  subsidized  by  a  Unitarian  gift 
of  $100,000  on  condition  that  all  theological  qualifications  in 
trusteeship  and  government  should  be  abandoned.  The  Uni¬ 
tarians  denied  any  desire  “to  have  the  college  exclusively  on 

*It  is  not  altogether  easy  to  estimate  the  extent  of  Unitarian  philan¬ 
thropy  and  there  seems  to  be  wide  divergence  of  opinion  regarding  it. 
Mr.  Salter  of  the  Society  of  Ethical  Culture  writes:  “There  has  not 
been  a  man  to  my  knowledge  among  Unitarians  who  has  addressed 
himself  to  the  social  question  in  the  spirit  of  Channing.”  (C.R.  1910: 
260.)  The  next  entry  in  my  notes  is  from  Mr.  W.  M.  Backus:  “There 
is  not  a  city  in  which  there  is  a  Unitarian  church  that  its  members 
are  not  found  leading  in  the  work  of  public  benefactions.”  (C.R.  1910: 
293.)  I  judge  that  the  truth  would  be  that  with  much  that  is  creditable 
Unitarian  philanthropy  has  not  been  notable  considering  wealth  and 
self-imposed  abstinence  from  the  missionary  and  educational  programs 
which  characterize  the  life  of  the  Christian  churches  of  the  country. 


The  Good  W orks  of  U nitananism  49 

any  terms,”  wrote  Dr.  H.  W.  Bellows.  “They  were  truly 
anxious  to  retain  the  characterizing  control  of  it  in  ‘Christian’ 
hands.  .  .  .  They  felt  that  the  less  formal  their  possession  of 
the  college,  the  larger  legitimate  moral  and  intellectual 
possession  they  might  have  of  the  ‘Christian’  mind.  What 
they  wanted  was  the  chance  of  giving  away  such  edu¬ 
cational  experience,  such  liberalizing  influences  as  they  pos¬ 
sessed.”'^ 

Horace  Mann  was  made  president  and  soon  brought  the 
institution  to  a  high  level  of  efficiency.  But  the  alliance  proved 
an  unnatural  one.  Mann’s  letters  indicate  that  he,  too,  was 
interested  in  denominational  infiltration.  “In  all  this  great 
West,  ours  is  the  only  institution  of  a  first-class  character  which 
is  not  directly  or  indirectly  under  the  influence  of  the  old-school 
theology.  .  .  .  Our  college,  therefore,  is  really  like  breaking 
a  hole  in  the  Chinese  wall.  It  lets  in  the  light  of  religious 
civilization  where  it  never  shone  before.  Think  of  this  great 
state  with  more  than  two  millions  of  inhabitants  and  only  one 
Unitarian  society!”  He  looked  on  the  “Christian  sect,”  as  his 
biographer  says,  “as  the  only  conduit  through  which  unsectarian 
education  could  flow  into  the  West.  .  .  .  The  Universalists  had 
as  bad  a  reputation  among  the  orthodox  as  the  Unitarians  and 
therefore  could  not  be  thus  used  so  safely.”* 

One  can  see  how  this  arriere  pensee  would  sooner  or  later 
alienate  the  owners  of  the  college  and  its  denominational  con¬ 
stituency.  Mann  was  at  last  obliged  to  write:  “The  last  sands 
of  Antioch  College  are  running  out.  Unless  we  can  have  some 
wholesale  instead  of  retail  donations  the  institution  sinks  .  .  . 
and  the  cause  of  liberal  Christianity  and  a  free-thought  edu¬ 
cation  expires  for  an  indefinite  time  for  all  this  valley  of  the 
West.”27  He  had  identified  himself  by  church  connection  with 

♦After  the  death  of  Mann,  E.  E.  Hale  wrote:  “We  expect  to  re¬ 
establish  Antioch  College  under  our  own  men  and  to  lure  into  the 
ministry  .  .  .  men  enough  to  run  our  enlarged  machinery.”  Dr.  Hale 
also  speaks  of  the  possession  of  Antioch  as  involving  “the  moral  and 
spiritual  direction  of  the  public  education  of  the  state  of  Ohio  and  for 
that  matter  of  the  neighboring  states.” — Life  of  E.  E.  Hale,  Vol.  2, 
7  and  267. 


50 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


the  “Christians,”  a  step  to  which  his  friend  Theodore  Parker 
took  strong  exception  in  view  of  the  “moral  contempt  Mann  felt 
for  the  absurd  and  debasing  theology  of  the  ‘Christians.’  ”28 

He  who  sups  with  the  devil  needs  a  long  spoon.  The 
“Christians”  have  today  no  college  in  Antioch.  In  the  college 
promotional  literature  its  president  is  described  as  “of  Quaker 
antecedents.”  He  is  actually  vice-president  of  the  American 
Unitarian  Association.*  Unitarian  shibboleths  are  dominant  in 
this  literature.  “Antioch  holds  the  way  to  truth  lies  through 
sincere,  open-minded  inquiry,  not  through  an  unquestioning 
acceptance  of  dogma  and  creed.  .  .  .  Comparatively  few  young 
people  are  interested  in  traditional  theology.  They  have  decided 
that  the  authority  of  tradition  is  not  an  adequate  basis  for  re¬ 
ligious  belief.  .  .  .  Mr.  Morgan  deprecates  religious  formulas.” 
There  are  religious  discussion  groups.  “We  all  talked  about 
Buddha,  Zarathustra,  and  Confucius,  comparing  their  doctrines 
with  the  laws  of  Moses  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  freely 
as  we  discuss  the  base-ball  score.”29  President  Eliot  endorses 
the  college’s  present  drive  for  a  million  and  H.  Van  Loon  dis¬ 
penses  history  of  a  sort  in  its  classrooms. 

The  Unitarians  are  “the  natural  planters  of  higher  education 
in  this  country”  according  to  Dr.  Bellows.30  The  two  above 
mentioned  enterprises  [with  Reed  College,  Portland,  a  recent 
private  foundation]  represent  the  chief  results  of  their  efforts 
outside  Massachusetts.  In  Massachusetts  individual  Unitarians 
established  Clark  University  and  Radcliffe  College.  Cornell 
is  also  claimed  by  them  as  Ezra  Cornell  was  an  expelled  Quaker 

^President  Arthur  Morgan  writes  of  himself:  “I  grew  up  in  the 
Baptist  church.  .  .  .  When  I  ceased  to  believe  the  Bible  infallible  I 
found  the  bottom  had  not  dropped  out  of  the  universe.  When  I  doubted 
the  deity  of  Jesus  the  structure  of  the  world  remained  intact;  when  I 
began  to  question  a  personality  called  God  chaos  did  not  begin.  .  .  . 
As  to  immortality  I  observe  that  life  continues  and  grows  finer  and 
more  abundant.  What  but  aggravated  selfishness  would  insist  that  it 
be  my  particular  composite  of  consciousness  that  continues.”  Ours  “is 
an  impersonal  universe.”  “I  see  no  evidence  that  a  Friend  behind 
phenomena  is  directing  the  life  urge  toward  any  predetermined  goal.” 
C.R.  1918:1048  and  1923:1066. 

Mr.  Morgan  was  recently  made  president  of  the  Unitarian  Sunday 
School  Association. 


The  Good  Works  of  Unitarianism 


51 


with  Unitarian  sympathies.31  As  a  corporate  body ,  however , 
Unitarians  have  never  pioneered  education  as  other  churches 
have  done.  The  institutional  poverty  of  Unitarianism  is  illus¬ 
trated  in  the  secondary  education  of  New  England.  The  great 
schools  of  this  grade  are  either  Puritan ;  Andover,  Exeter,  Wil- 
liston,  the  Northfield  Schools  and  some  dozen  others,  or  Episco¬ 
palian;  St.  Paul’s,  St.  George’s,  St.  Mark’s,  Groton.  Uni¬ 
tarianism  is  represented  by  Procter  Academy  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire:  “poor  and  situated  in  a  poor  country  but  keeping  alive 
the  lamp  of  liberal  culture  and  sincere  truth-seeking,”  as  Presi¬ 
dent  Eliot  tells  us.32  But  why  after  a  century  of  Unitarian 
wealth  should  it  be  poor? 

Harvard  has  been  the  pride  of  Unitarians  and  is  fairly  en¬ 
titled  to  be  considered  an  expression  of  their  spirit.  What  do 
those  who  know  it  best  say  of  it? 

President  Eliot  thinks  it  stands  pre-eminently  “for  service.”33 
If  he  means  efficient  paid  service  one  can  readily  believe  it  but 
it  would  be  a  bold  thing  indeed  to  connect  sacrificial  service 
in  any  way  with  the  college  or  its  graduates.  Prof.  Wm.  James, 
lecturing  at  the  University  of  Chicago  some  years  before  his 
death,  took  a  less  flattering  view.  After  expressing  his  disillu¬ 
sionment  regarding  the  moralizing  power  of  education  he  con¬ 
tinued:  “I  have  been  a  citizen  of  Cambridge  for  many  years 
and  in  my  time  there  has  been  in  Eastern  Massachusetts  no 
enterprise  of  public  or  private  rascality  that  has  not  been  or¬ 
ganized  or  led  by  a  Harvard  graduate.”34 

Just  what  called  forth  this  remark  we  do  not  know.  Prof. 
James’  occasional  vehemence  is  well  remembered  and  this  may 
perhaps  pass  as  an  illustration  of  it.  A  cooler  and  more  accurate 
judgment  is  that  of  Henry  Adams  who  knew  Harvard  life 
au  fond.  “Harvard  college  was  [in  his  education]  a  negative 
force.  The  absence  of  enthusiasm  was  all  that  Harvard  College 
taught.  In  effect  the  school  created  a  type,  not  a  will  .  .  .  leaders 
of  men  it  never  tried  to  make.  The  Unitarian  clergy  had  given 
to  the  college  a  character  of  moderation,  what  the  French  call 

"35 


me  sure. 


52 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


This  mesure  is  little  else  than  a  lack  of  idealism  and  whole¬ 
some  moral  initiative.  A  recent  Oberlin  publication,  A  History 
of  Honor,  illustrates  what  I  mean.  From  this  school  moulded 
by  the  spirit  of  President  Finney  more  than  a  thousand  men 
and  women  have  gone  out  as  missionaries.  Twenty  laid  down 
their  lives  in  Shensi  during  the  Boxer  days.  President  R.  B. 
Hayes  said  of  Oberlin’s  work  for  negro  emancipation  that  the 
college  was  “at  the  head  of  every  forward  march  in  the  great 
conflict  against  slavery/’  Oberlin  men  and  women  at  the  time 
when  Phillips  was  denouncing  Harvard  as  “an  infliction”  fired 
the  anti-slavery  conscience  of  the  whole  Middle  West  through¬ 
out  which  they  taught  winter  times  in  the  district  schools. 
Oberlin  was  the  first  college  to  admit  students  regardless  of 
race.  In  1923  Harvard  Jim-Crowed  the  freshman  dormitories 
and  blackballed  the  Jew.  The  Anti-Saloon  League  was  or¬ 
ganized  in  the  Oberlin  library  and  when  in  desperate  financial 
straits  was  saved  from  dissolution  by  the  personal  subscription 
of  President  Fairchild.  Of  Harvard’s  part  in  the  Committee 
of  Fifty  I  have  spoken  elsewhere.* 

When  a  student  of  alcohol  intrigues  I  was  often  struck  with 
the  way  in  which  Harvard  men  were  directly  or  indirectly 


*“Would  any  young  enthusiast 
on  fire  for  a  new  reform  be  crazy 
enough  to  go  to  Harvard  College 
for  countenance  ?  If  so  he  must 
be  very  jroung  and  will  soon  learn 
better.” — IV endell  Phillips ,  (Life) 
by  Carlos  Martyn,  527. 

In  an  address  to  the  Harvard 
alumni  in  1903  Prof.  James  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  venal  quills  of  Har¬ 
vard: 

“Some  of  Tammany’s  staunch¬ 
est  supporters  are  Harvard  men. 
Harvard  men,  as  journalists,  pride 
themselves  on  producing  copy  for 
any  side  that  may  enlist  them. 
There  is  not  a  public  abuse  for 
which  some  Harvard  advocate 
may  not  be  found.” — Memories 
and  Studies:  The  True  Harvard, 
352. 


The  first  students  showed  their 
aggressive  tendencies  by  going  out 
in  scores  to  temperance  “raisings” 
and  by  gathering  Sunday-schools 
in  destitute  neighborhoods.  .  .  . 
Oberlin  students  were  abused  and 
cursed  in  neighboring  towns  be¬ 
cause  of  their  antislavery  opinions. 
At  times  terrible  mobs  greeted 
them.  The  signposts  to  Oberlin 
were  bespattered  with  mud  and 
shot  up.  On  the  Middle  Ridge 
road  six  miles  to  the  north  there 
stood,  at  a  very  recent  day,  a 
board  directing  to  Oberlin  not  by 
the  ordinary  index  finger  but  by  a 
full-length  picture  of  a  colored 
man  running  with  all  his  might 
to  reach  the  place. — J.  H.  Fair- 
child,  Oberlin,  Its  Origin ,  Prog¬ 
ress,  and  Results,  26-27. 


The  Good  W orks  of  U nitarianism 


53 


serving  the  interests  of  that  basest  of  organizations,  the  U.  S. 
Brewers’  Association.  Koren,  its  arch-intriguer,  was  not  trained 
there  but  he  had  intimate  connections  with  leading  Harvard 
personalities.  [It  was  also  a  Harvard  overseer,  Sedgwick  ’95, 
who  continued  to  publish  the  Koren  articles  in  the  Atlantic  as 
bona  fide  science  even  after  he  had  been  informed  of  the  writer’s 
relation  to  the  brewers.]  Oppenheim  ’88,  was  the  bibliographer 
of  the  U.  S.  Brewers’  Association.  Stone  ’94,  the  son  of  the 
manager  of  the  Associated  Press ,  was  in  full  [clandestine]  con¬ 
trol  of  their  publicity  interests  and  met  a  wet  death  on  the 
Lusitania  when  going  on  a  wet  errand  for  the  brewers  to 
European  capitals.36  The  wettest  of  machine  politicians,  Pen¬ 
rose  ’81,  the  Republican  boss  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Barnes  ’88, 
the  Republican  boss  of  New  York,  were  both  prepared  for  their 
life  work  at  Cambridge.  Nor  does  this  exhaust  the  list. 

“The  influence  of  Harvard  College  was  beginning  to  have 
its  effect,”  says  Henry  Adams  of  himself.  “He  was  slipping 
away  from  fixed  principles A37 

Further,  we  should  remember  the  official  attitude  of  the 
university  of  which  the  Adolphus  Busch  building  gives  ocular 
evidence.  Busch  was  a  St.  Louis  brewer  who  for  a  generation 
provided  the  saloons  and  brothels  of  the  Southwest  with  alco¬ 
holic  gaity  and  corrupted  the  politics  of  the  same  section  with 
his  incessant  slush  funds  [ The  Brewers  and  Texas  Politics], 
When  the  corner-stone  of  the  Germanic  Museum  was  laid  the 
Appleton  Chapel  choir  led  the  procession  of  which  the  brewer’s 
wife  and  the  Harvard  faculty  formed  the  nucleus.  A  Harvard 
professor  described  Busch  as  “a  doer  of  great  things  and  warm¬ 
hearted  lover  of  mankind,  a  soul  too  joyous  and  active  ever  to 
grow  old.”  On  the  building’s  facade  Goethe’s  words  look  down 
with  ironical  smile: 

Es  ist  der  Geist 

Der  sich  den  Koerper  baut. 

“What  a  shabby  place  Harvard  is,”  remarked  Dr.  Phillips 
Brooks  to  Percy  Grant,  possibly  with  the  architecture  of  the 


54 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


yard  in  mind.  One  could  hardly  find  fault  with  the  architecture 
of  either  the  Germanic  Museum  or  Andover  Hall.  But  oh,  the 
moral  shabbiness  they  summon  up! 

The  moral  energy  of  Oberlin  was  the  child  of  Oberlin  re¬ 
ligion;  the  flaccid  conscience  of  Harvard,  of  Unitarianism  run  to 
religious  nihilism.  Of  this  nihilism  one  gets  an  interesting 
expression  in  a  recent  commencement  address  on  religion  by  a 
Harvard  senior.  Harvard  students,  he  explained  to  the  assem¬ 
bled  commencement-gathering  in  Sanders  Theatre,  “do  not  deny 
the  idea  of  God  as  a  ruling  force  in  their  lives.  Nevertheless 
they  find  no  place  for  it  in  their  daily  thoughts.  When  a 
temptation  arises  it  is  not  the  idea  of  God,  who  with  a  firm 
hand  guides  their  steps  aright,  but  rather  a  faith  in  the  ideals 
of  manhood  and  duty  inculcated  at  Harvard. 

“We  can  go  still  further.  There  are  many  men,  they  are 
a  well-known  type,  who  are  spiritual  in  their  tendencies,  who 
have  with  great  care  and  thought  worked  out  a  religion  for 
themselves  and  who  still  find  no  support  in  the  thought  of 
God.  Yet  they,  too,  have  a  more  vital  religion  than  most  con¬ 
ventional  believers.  It  is  solely  a  creation  of  their  own.  In 
studying  many-sided  Harvard  they  have  studied  life  and  de¬ 
veloped  a  life  religion. 

“So  it  is  with  Harvard  men  whether  we  know  it  or  not. 
We  all  form  our  ideals  of  life  in  an  atmosphere  of  Harvard 
personalities.  These  ideals  either  constitute  our  whole  religion 
or  are  at  least  the  foundations  upon  which  a  more  conventional 
superstructure  may  be  built.  This  common  religious  basis  is 
what  we  mean  by  Harvard's  religion  and  it  is  this  which  unifies 
all  Harvard  men  even  as  Christ  by  his  personality  still  unifies 
all  Christian  denominations ."38 

There  is  no  reason  to  regret,  then,  that  Boston  Unitarianism 
was  too  niggard  to  start  schools  in  the  West  and  that  Yale 
rather  than  Harvard  became  “the  mother  of  colleges.”  It  w^as 
to  the  evangelical  Congregationalism  of  New  England  that  the 
country  owes  Marietta  College,  Ohio;  Wheaton,  Knox,  Illinois, 
and  Rock  Island  colleges  in  Illinois;  Beloit  and  Ripon  Colleges 


The  Good  IF orks  of  Unitarianism 


55 


in  Wisconsin;  Olivet  College,  Michigan;  Grinnell  College, 
Iowa;  Carleton  College,  Minnesota;  Washburn  College,  Kan¬ 
sas;  Duane  College,  Nebraska;  Drury  College,  Missouri; 
Colorado  College,  Colorado;  Yankton  College,  South  Dakota; 
Fargo  College,  North  Dakota;  Whitman  College,  Washington; 
Pacific  University,  Oregon;  Pomona  College,  California,  besides 
numerous  academies. 

The  American  Missionary  Society  [Congregational]  was  a 
merger  of  anti-slavery  mission  groups  formed  because  of  the 
neutrality  of  the  denominational  boards,  the  oldest  being  the 
Amistad  Committee  organized  in  1839.  By  1860  the  Associ¬ 
ation  had  112  missionaries.  Berea  College,  Kentucky,  was  its 
first  college.  As  soon  as  the  Union  armies  entered  the  South 
its  teachers  and  missionaries  opened  freedmen  schools  in  Wash¬ 
ington,  Hampton,  Norfolk,  Cairo,  Newbern.  In  1866  its  an¬ 
nual  income  had  reached  $253,945  and  its  workers  numbered 
525. 

Atlanta  University  was  founded  in  1867.  In  the  same 
year  Howard  University,  Washington,  which  has  now  2,000 
students,  was  started  [in  a  prayer-meeting]  in  the  First 
Congregational  church,  Washington,  under  the  leadership  of 
General  O.  O.  Howard.  In  1868  General  Armstrong  in  co¬ 
operation  with  the  Association  laid  the  foundations  of  Hampton 
Institute.  Then  followed  Fisk  University  at  Nashville,  Talla¬ 
dega,  Tougaloo,  Straight,  and  Tillotson  colleges  for  the  blacks, 
with  other  institutions,  seventy-eight  in  all.  So  did  the  old 
theology  of  New  England  pioneer  education  among  the  freed¬ 
men  as  well  as  on  the  frontier. 

“If  our  churches  had  seen  their  opportunity  at  the  end  of 
the  Civil  War  and  taxed  themselves  $100,000  for  education 
in  the  South  we  should  be  nearer  today  to  the  demonstration 
of  our  religious  thought  to  America.”  So  remarked  Dr.  Dole 
in  a  speech  at  the  General  Unitarian  Conference  of  1913. 89 
What  a  confession!  I  know  about  the  devoted  work  of  Mr. 
Baldwin  as  trustee  of  Tuskeegee  and  the  gifts  from  Mrs. 
Hemenway  to  Hampton  and  the  excellent  labors  of  Calhoun 


56 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Colored  School,  Alabama.*  But  are  these  theoretical  protagon¬ 
ists  of  “social  Christianity”  proud  of  the  fact  that  this  last 
institution  with  an  endowment  of  $139,950  [more  than  half 
of  which  I  discover  on  inquiry  has  come  to  the  school  from 
other  than  Unitarian  sources]  represents  practically  all  their 
denominational  work  in  fifty  years  for  the  uplift  of  nine  million 
black  Americans?  The  New  England  Freedman’s  Aid  Society 
which  Miss  Crocker  and  Miss  May  promoted  for  the  Uni¬ 
tarians  was  carried  on  “as  long  as  it  possibly  could  be  kept 
alive.”  It  was  started  in  war-time  but  Boston  purses  soon 
wearied  giving.  When  the  war  closed  “in  the  sanguine  hope 
that  the  fourteenth  amendment  had  sufficiently  secured  the 
rights  of  the  negro  and  that  the  school  system  of  the  Southern 
states  would  give  him  equal  opportunities  of  education  with 
the  whites,  the  New  England  Freedman’s  Society  closed  its 
work.”  Memoir  of  Abbie  W .  May ,  23  and  368. 

For  the  Indian,  Unitarianism  has  done  even  less  than  for  the 
negro.  When  James  Tanner,  a  mission  worker  of  the  Baptists, 
passed  into  their  fold  they  undertook  to  support  his  enterprise 
but  were  unable  to  raise  $4,000  annually.  When  Unitarianism 
broke  away  from  Puritanism  it  took  with  it,  with  its  other 
spoils,  the  Society  for  the  Propagating  of  the  Gospel  among 

*During  its  first  eight  years  the  Tuskegee  Institute  received  $5,000 
annually  from  Unitarians  and  in  more  recent  years  $10,000  annually 
(Cooke,  Unitarianism,  339.)  The  Shellbanks  Farm  [valued  at  $10,000] 
was  presented  by  Mrs.  Hemenway  in  ’79 ;  the  King’s  Chapel  Hospital 
in  ’86.  Hampton  was  founded  by  Congregationalists.  Its  president  and 
vice-president  in  1924  were  Unitarians  and  there  are  two  other  Unita¬ 
rians  on  the  board  of  trustees.  The  student  body  meets  in  forty  classes 
Sunday  mornings  for  Bible  study.  Their  textbooks  are  from  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Chicago  Press .  No  Unitarian  would  object  to  these  publica¬ 
tions.  “I  fear,”  said  Mrs.  Stowe  of  the  Liberator  in  its  later  days,  “that 
it  will  take  from  poor  Uncle  Tom  his  Bible  and  give  him  nothing  in 
its  place.”  There  is  a  colored  ministers’  summer  conference  each  year. 
More  than  a  thousand  ministers  have  attended  in  ten  years  past.  Prof. 
Cadbury  of  the  Harvard  Theological  School  and  Prof.  Fullerton,  an¬ 
other  modernist,  were  teachers  in  the  last  course. 

“When  the  question  was  raised  whether  these  [Unitarian]  gifts  might 
not  effect  injuriously  the  orthodoxy  of  the  school  whose  charter  had 
determined  that  ‘its  teaching  should  always  be  evangelical’  Armstrong’s 
reply  was  unequivocal,  ‘The  Institution  must  have  a  positive  character. 
It  has.  It’s  orthodox  and  that’s  the  end  of  it.’  ” — Peabody,  Education 
for  Life,  138. 


The  Good  Works  of  Unitarianism 


57 


the  Indians  and  its  fund.  The  old  society  supported  missionaries 
in  Maine,  on  the  Isle  of  Shoals,  on  Martha’s  Vineyard,  among 
the  Narragansett,  New  Stockbridge,  Passamaquoddy,  St.  Fran¬ 
cis  (Canada)  and  other  tribes.  It  revived  the  missionary  tra¬ 
ditions  of  John  Eliot  and  his  profound  sympathy  for  “the  poor 
soules  of  these  mines  of  mankinde.”  What  happier  starting 
point  could  have  been  found  for  missionary  expansion!  Yet  not 
a  soul  has  been  discovered  in  Unitarianism  to  continue  the 
work  and  the  income  from  investments  has  been  applied  to 
general  Unitarian  interests.  In  connection  with  this  society 
John  Alford  had  devised  in  the  eighteenth  century  a  consider¬ 
able  sum  “for  the  spreading  of  the  Gospel  among  the  heathen.” 
This  is  the  base  of  the  Alford  professorship  in  philosophy  at 
Harvard  now  held  by  Prof.  Hocking,  and  in  no  even  distant 
relation  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  money  was  bequeathed. 
Walcotts  and  Coolidges  and  Hunnewells  are  to  be  found  on 
the  management  of  this  old  society  but  there  have  been  no 
Whipples  or  Hares  or  Sheldon  Jacksons  in  its  post-evangelical 
history.  Its  seal,  “Not  by  might  nor  by  power  but  by  my  spirit,” 
explains  its  early  prosperity  and  later  impotence. 

Nor  in  the  past  century  did  the  Unitarians  of  New  England 
to  any  extent  parallel  the  great  home-missionary  work  in  the 
West  which  the  old  theology  of  New  England  promoted.  Four¬ 
teen  missionary  and  Bible  societies  were  organized  by  the 
latter  in  the  first  ten  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  during 
the  first  forty  years  orthodox  Congregationalists  of  Massachu¬ 
setts  and  Connecticut  planted  something  like  1,500  churches 
in  the  West,  contributing  in  the  aggregate  about  two  millions 
for  their  support.40  Nothing  came  out  of  Harvard  similar  to 
the  famous  “Yale  bands”  of  Illinois  and  of  Iowa  nor  did  Uni¬ 
tarianism  contribute  pioneers  of  the  type  of  Marcus  Whitman 
and  Julian  Sturtevant  and  Asa  Turner  and  David  Bacon  and 
the  apostle  to  the  Nez  Perces,  H.  H.  Spaulding,  to  win  the 
wilderness  to  Christ. 

One  little  present-day  interest  of  this  sort,  however,  Unita¬ 
rianism  is  fostering  in  the  South.  It  is  located  in  Eastern  North 


58 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Carolina  and  consists  of  two  schools,  the  combined  budget  of 
which  is  about  $4,000,  raised  with  difficulty.  The  neighborhood 
does  not  altogether  relish  the  teaching  offered  it  and  is  even 
accused  of  having  “boycotted  the  library.”  Mr.  Robinson,  how¬ 
ever,  “has  gone  on  quietly  in  the  face  of  abuse  and  misrepre¬ 
sentation.”  Baptist  and  Methodist  women  at  Shelter  Neck, 
N.  C.,  are  spoken  of  much  as  if  they  were  Hindu  mothers 
throwing  babes  to  Ganges  crocodiles.  “Oh,  you  cannot  think 
what  it  is  to  us,”  they  are  quoted  as  gratefully  saying,  “not  to 
have  to  believe  that  when  our  babies  die  they  are  going  to 
hell.”*41 

The  golden  age  of  Unitarianism  coincided  with  the  era  of 
antislavery  agitation  and  a  shining  group  indeed  was  that  which 
it  contributed  to  the  leadership  of  this  movement :  J.  Q.  Adams, 
Sumner,  Channing,  Parker,  S.  J.  May,  Theodore  D.  Weld, 
J.  A.  Andrew,  John  P.  Hale,  J.  R.  Lowell,  J.  G.  Palfrey,  S.  G. 
Howe,  and  J.  F.  Clarke.  But  if  it  gave  some  of  the  best  minds 
to  the  right  side  it  did  a  like  service  to  the  wrong  one.  John 
C.  Calhoun,  most  relentless  of  fire-eaters,  was  a  Unitarian  as 
also  was  Millard  Fillmore,  the  most  plastic  of  dough-faces;  the 
“cuckoo  lips”  of  Edward  Everett  were  trained  in  the  Harvard 
Divinity  School,  and  Samuel  A.  Eliot,  the  single  Massachusetts 
congressman  who  voted  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  got  his 
moral  inspiration  in  the  same  place.f  If  Garrison  was  in  general 

*Mr.  Robinson  contributes  an  article  on  “Prayer”  to  the  Christian 
Register  (1915:61)  which  may  explain  this  resentment  among  the  North 
Carolina  heathen.  “Billions  of  people,”  he  writes,  “have  been  taught 
to  take  their  burdens  to  God  in  prayer.  They  have  done  so  and  have 
shifted  them  from  their  own  shoulders.  Instead  of  that  people  ought 
to  have  been  taught  that  their  own  good  and  the  upward  progress  of 
the  world  depends  upon  themselves,  that  what  God  does  he  does  in  a 
general  way.  ...  I  find  no  place  for  petition  in  my  prayer.  The  very 
moment  I  begin  to  use  the  words  ‘help’  or  ‘grant’  or  any  such  words 
I  begin  to  feel  the  emptiness  of  my  prayer.” 

fHis  son,  President  Eliot,  apparently  forgot  this  when  commending 
Unitarianism  to  the  Japanese  in  Unity  Hall,  Tokyo,  on  the  ground  that 
the  movement  against  slavery  in  America  was  started  and  strongly 
supported  by  Unitarians  (C.R.  1912:745),  nor  did  he  recall  that  he  is 
the  grandson  of  Mayor  Lyman  of  “the  broad-cloth”  episode  of  whom 
Phillips  said,  “I  saw  him  beg  and  sue.  .  .  .  He  never  vindicated  his 


The  Good  Works  of  U hitarianism 


59 


sympathy  with  Unitarianism  so  were  most  of  the  gentlemen 
in  “the  broadcloth  mob”  who  dragged  the  rope  about  his  waist 
that  October  afternoon  on  Washington  Street.  For  the  Uni¬ 
tarians  were  the  people  who  wore  broadcloth  in  the  Boston 
of  1835.*  Certainly  Mayor  Theodore  Lyman  was  of  that  per¬ 
suasion  as  was  Harrison  Gray  Otis  who  presided  at  the  meeting 
of  Boston  aristocrats  that  is  generally  regarded  as  the  prologue 
to  the  mob  outbreak. 

Sumner  was  a  Unitarian  but  Boston  Unitarianism  put  its 
social  ban  upon  him.  He  was  obliged  to  declare  when  fighting 
the  cause  of  the  slave  in  the  Senate  at  Washington  that  only 
two  doors  in  Boston  always  stood  open  to  him.  When  his 
broken  body  was  brought  back  to  Massachusetts  after  the 
assault  in  ’56  the  blinds  of  every  house  on  Beacon  Street  save 
those  of  Messrs.  Appleton  and  Prescott  were  shut  in  an  osten¬ 
tatious  demonstration  of  hostility.42 

Hear  Samuel  J.  May  pleading  with  Channing  to  come  out 
unmistakably  for  the  movement: 

“We  are  not  to  blame  that  wiser  and  better  men  did  not 
espouse  abolitionism  long  ago.  .  .  .  The  scholars,  the  clergy¬ 
men,  the  statesmen  had  done  nothing  and  did  not  seem  about 
to  do  anything.  For  my  part  I  thank  God  that  at  last  any 
persons,  be  they  who  they  may,  have  moved  earnestly  in  this 
cause,  for  no  movement  can  be  in  vain.  We  abolitionists  are 
just  what  we  are,  babes,  sucklings,  obscure  men,  silly  women, 
publicans,  sinners,  and  we  shall  manage  the  matter  we  have 
taken  in  hand  just  as  might  be  expected  of  such  persons  as  we 
are.  It  is  unbecoming  of  abler  men  who  stood  by  and  would 
do  nothing  to  complain  of  us  because  we  manage  this  matter 
no  better.”43 

office  by  even  attempting  to  rally  a  force  and  maintain  order.  .  .  .1 
saw  him  consent  if  not  assist  at  tearing  down  the  antislavery  sign  and 
throwing  it  to  the  mob  to  propitiate  its  rage.” — Austin,  Life  and  Times 
of  JFendell  Phillips. 

*“A11  the  elite  of  wealth  and  fashion  crowded  the  Unitarian 
churches.” — Mrs.  H.  B.  Stowe  in  Autobiography  of  Lyman  Beecher, 
Vol.  2,  110. 


60 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Channing  answered  to  the  call  finally  but  when  he  spoke  at 
the  meeting  summoned  in  Faneuil  Hall  to  denounce  Lovejoy’s 
murder,  it  was  a  Unitarian  layman,  James  T.  Austin,  member 
of  his  church  and  attorney-general  of  the  commonwealth,  who 
declared  that  Lovejoy  had  “died  as  the  fool  dieth”  and  that 
“to  free  the  negroes  would  be  letting  hyenas  loose.” 

Parker  seemed  to  have  no  illusions  regarding  his  co-religion¬ 
ists.  “As  a  general  thing,”  he  wrote,  “the  Unitarian  ministers 
have  ideas  in  advance  of  the  orthodox  ministers*  while  they 
have  generally  congregations  more  mammonish,  hunkerish,  and 
worldly  than  the  orthodox.  .  .  .  Unitarianism  had  always  a 
worldly  character.  Some  of  their  members  engage  in  the  great 
moral  movements  of  the  day  such  as  temperance  reform  and 
the  antislavery  movement,  but  the  sect  as  such  is  opposed  to 
all  reforms.”  The  opposition  which  he  received  from  those  of 
his  own  household  is  well  known.  When  appointed  by  a  vigi¬ 
lance  committee  “spiritual  director  of  all  the  fugitive  slaves  in 
Massachusetts  while  in  peril”  he  had  to  write,  “It  is  a  rather 
queer  state  of  things.  Some  of  Gannett’s  parishioners  attempt 
to  kidnap  some  of  my  parishioners.  I  hide  them  in  my  house 
and  guard  the  doors  night  and  day  to  keep  them  safe.”44  It 
was  his  fellow  churchman,  Benj.  R.  Curtis,  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  who  indicted  him  for  “obstructing  the  process 
of  the  United  States  law,”  referring  to  his  active  opposition  to 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.45 

If  anyone  doubts  the  sentiment  of  Boston  Unitarianism  of 
the  forties  and  fifties  regarding  slavery  let  him  run  through  the 
list  of  the  seven  hundred  names  attached  to  the  memorial  to 
Webster  in  recognition  of  the  Seventh  of  March  speech  wherein 
that  statesman  had  announced  his  support  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  “with  all  its  provisions  to  its  fullest  extent”:  George 
Ticknor,  T.  H.  Perkins,  Jared  Sparks,  W.  H.  Prescott,  James 
Jackson,  C.  C.  Felton,  B.  R.  Curtis,  T.  B.  Wales,  J.  A. 
Lowell  and  the  rest.46  What  a  rally  of  the  Brahmins!  Dr. 

♦Yet  O.  B.  Frothingham  describes  the  Unitarian  ministers  as  a  rule 
to  have  been  opposed  to  the  abolitionists. — Boston  Unitarianism,  197. 


The  Good  Works  of  Unitarianism 


61 


Orville  Dewey,  leading  Unitarian  minister  in  New  York,  went 
so  far  from  the  course  Garrison  had  marked  out  as  to  declare 
his  willingness  to  return  his  own  mother  to  slavery  if  it  were 
required  to  save  the  Union.*47 

In  the  next  great  emancipation  movement,  that  from  alco¬ 
holism,  one  finds  a  few  Unitarian  names:  John  Pierpont, 
Mary  A.  Livermore,  John  D.  Long,  H.  H.  Faxon,  but  these 
were  even  less  representative  of  their  church  than  the  Unita¬ 
rian  abolitionists.  Dr.  Bartol,  the  minister  of  the  West  Church, 
felt  called  to  ridicule  the  anti-alcohol  movement  and  his  para¬ 
doxes  drew  a  reprimand  from  Wendell  Phillips  which  consti¬ 
tutes  a  fair  judgment  of  Unitarian  public  morals  as  far  as  this 
particular  question  is  concerned. 

“Some  temperance  men,”  he  wrote,  “are  surprised  and  indig¬ 
nant  at  what  they  consider  Dr.  BartoFs  prostitution  of  the 
liberal  pulpit.  Such  men  forget  the  history  of  the  temperance 
movement  in  Boston.  When  Rev.  John  Pierpont  forty  years 
ago  returned  from  the  East  he  stated  in  his  pulpit  in  Hollis 
Street  that  the  first  thing  he  saw  there  [in  Smyrna,  I  believe] 
was  a  barrel  of  New  England  rum  [N.  E.  RUM  burned  into 
its  head  in  large  capitals].  He  made  this  the  text  for  an  earnest 
and  eloquent  agitation  of  the  temperance  question.  The  richest 
parishioners  were  rum-makers  and  rum-sellers.  Their  rum  was 
then  stored  in  the  very  cellar  of  his  church.  I  will  not  mention 
names.  Their  children  continue  the  manufacture  and  the 
traffic.  They  set  to  work  by  reducing  his  salary,  refusing  to 

*“I  must  go  or  choke  in  this  disgraced  and  degraded  community,” 
wrote  Dr.  S.  G.  Howe  in  1854.  James  Freeman  Clarke  preaching  on 
the  return  of  Anthony  Burns  said,  “Especially  I  blame  the  Unitarian 
churches  for  they  have  had  the  especial  and  rare  fortune  of  having 
their  greatest  and  best  teacher  on  the  side  of  justice  and  humanity  and 
they  have  fallen  away  from  his  teaching  and  his  example.  .  .  .  Out 
of  the  Unitarian  churches  of  Boston  have  come  those  who  have  done 
the  most  in  this  community  to  lower  its  moral  sense  on  this  subject.” — 
Hale,  Life  of  J.  F.  Clarke,  233. 

So  Samuel  J.  May,  “Continually  in  their  public  meetings  the  question 
was  staved  off  and  driven  out  because  of  technical,  formal,  verbal 
difficulties  which  were  of  no  real  importance.  ...  It  does  seem  to 
me  that  they  were  pre-eminently  guilty  in  reference  to  the  enslavement 
of  the  millions  in  our  land.” — Cooke,  Unitarianism  in  America,  356. 


62 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


pay  one  dollar  of  it,  mortgaging  the  church  for  heavy  debt  and 
by  every  means  tried  to  drive  Pierpont  from  the  pulpit.  Finding 
this  ineffectual  they  announced  their  determination  to  buy  up 
every  pew  that  could  be  had  and  then  securing  a  majority  of 
votes,  dismiss  him  from  his  charge.  .  .  . 

“The  wealthy  rum-sellers  of  the  city,  whether  attending  the 
Hollis  Street  church  or  not,  bought  pews  there,  pews  they 
never  used,  and  finally  obliged  Mr.  Pierpont  to  agree  to  vacate 
his  pulpit.  During  the  seven  years  of  this  hard-fought  battle 
between  the  penniless,  eloquent  apostle  in  the  pulpit  and  the 
wealthy  rum-sellers  in  the  pews,  the  Unitarian  clergy  of  Suffolk 
county  gave  the  public  to  understand  that  they  renounced  all 
ministerial  .  .  .  professional  recognition  and  courtesy.  With 
two  or  three  exceptions  all  the  liberal  clergy  shut  him  from 
their  pulpits.  The  rum-sellers  taunted  him  with  the  fact  that 
hardly  one  of  his  clerical  brethren  in  Boston  would  exchange 
with  him.  In  his  letter  of  farewell  to  the  ministerial  association 
Mr.  Pierpont  affirms  that  this  course  of  conduct  toward  him 
was  adopted  with  the  intention  to  drive  him  from  that  pulpit. 

“Mr.  Bartol,  therefore,  does  not  prostitute  the  liberal  pulpit. 
.  .  .  Judged  by  the  example  and  conduct  of  the  vast  majority 
of  the  liberal  clergy  of  Boston  for  the  last  forty  years  such 
sermons  as  Dr.  Bartol  has  of  late  delivered  are  just  the  preach¬ 
ing  for  which  the  liberal  pulpit  was  created  and  is  sustained” 
[abridged].*48 

The  alcohol  question  is  not  a  complex  question.  All  that  is 
ever  needed  for  its  theoretical  solution  is  a  reasonably  sensitive 
personal  conscience  and  an  elementary  sense  of  public  decency. 
The  whole  brunt  of  the  movement  in  New  England  has  been 
borne  by  the  Christian  churches.  Unitarianism  until  recently 
consistently  stood  aloof.  Occasionally  it  has  intervened  to  over- 

*  Moses  Williams,  a  very  rich  Boston  liquor-dealer,  led  in  this  fight 
on  Dr.  Pierpont.  A  large  slice  of  the  tainted  Williams’  fortune  went  to 
the  endowment  of  theological  education  at  Harvard  and  another  to  the 
building  fund  of  the  Boston  [Unitarian]  Y.  M.  C.  Union.  Dr.  Chaney, 
successor  to  Pierpont,  said  of  this  rum-selling  Maecenas,  his  “praise 
should  be  in  all  the  churches  for  the  provision  he  made  for  the  unsecta¬ 
rian  preparation  for  the  ministry  in  Harvard.”  C.R.  1918:1167. 


The  Good  Works  of  XJ nitarianism  63 

throw  that  which  has  been  painfully  built  up.  Thus  in  1867 
it  was  Unitarianism  led  by  its  most  prominent  layman  [ex-Gov. 
J.  A.  Andrew]  which  broke  down  the  prohibitory  law  and 
turned  Massachusetts  over  for  another  generation  to  the  vend¬ 
ors  of  alcohol.  Andrew  [who  beside  being  the  great  war-gov¬ 
ernor  was  superintendent  of  J.  F.  Clarke’s  Sunday-school] 
received  a  fee  from  the  [illegal]  liquor  interests  exceptionally 
large  for  the  time  and  defended  alcohol  and  its  sale  at  the 
State  House  in  a  plea  which  for  sophistry  and  hypocrisy  makes 
one  hang  one’s  head  for  shame.  To  his  support  came  all  the 
great  lights  of  Harvard  Unitarianism:  the  Bigelows,  the  Bow- 
ditches,  the  Jacksons,  Prof.  Francis  Bowen,  the  Rev.  F.  H. 
Hedge,  Dr.  O.  W.  Holmes.  Alcohol  was  given  a  scientific 
exoneration  by  these  authorities  which  atoned  for  all  its  moral 
delinquencies.49 

A  generation  later  from  this  quarter  came  another  and  more 
serious  blockade  of  the  anti-alcohol  movement,  that  which  found 
expression  in  the  Committee  of  Fifty  Report.  This  was  led  by 
Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody,  Prof.  H.  P.  Bowditch,  President  Eliot, 
and  others.  At  the  1922  Founders’  Day  at  Cornell  University, 
Prof.  Nicholls  reflected  on  the  reactionary  spirit  of  American 
students  and  illustrated  it  by  their  indifference  to  the  movement 
which  has  culminated  in  the  Eighteenth  Amendment.  Why  is 
it  that  this  toryism  should  be  dominant  in  the  colleges?  Simply 
because  whenever  American  students  of  the  generation  past 
have  asked  for  guidance  on  the  alcohol  question  they  have  been 
directed  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty.  Here,  it  has 
been  alleged,  is  to  be  found  the  scientific  judgment  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  in  all  its  phases.  The  rehabilitation  of  alcohol  as  “a  food,” 
an  intolerant  hostility  to  temperance  instruction,  scorn  of  pro¬ 
hibition  as  an  insane  counsel  of  perfection, — these  have  passed 
from  this  six-volume  report  into  the  mental  makeup  of  American 
college  students  and  the  student  community  which  [as  so  often 
in  Continental  Europe]  should  have  furnished  the  leadership 
of  the  movement,  has  in  America  commonly  checked  and  ridi¬ 
culed  it. 


64 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


I  venture  to  say  that  all  the  economic  and  hygienic  advances 
which  are  emerging  from  National  Prohibition  have  been  delayed 
a  decade  by  the  publication  of  this  report  by  these  Unitarian  mar¬ 
plots.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  today  that  a  Harvard  group 
should  have  gone  to  the  legislature  in  the  name  of  science  to 
break  down  a  law  which  taught  children  in  the  public  schools 
the  hygienic  dangers  of  alcohol,  insisting  that  “temperance 
instruction  could  result  in  nothing  but  the  wide-spread  demoral¬ 
ization  of  our  youth”  (Bowditch),  and  urging  the  legislature 
“not  to  offend  these  little  ones.”50 

Channing,  sixty  years  before,  had  proposed  “to  end  intem¬ 
perance  by  improving  the  physique  of  the  young.”51  Prof. 
Peabody  offered  a  similar  blue-sky  program,  deprecated  “in¬ 
temperate  speech  and  exaggerated  statement,”  (“There  is  much 
to  fear  from  excess  of  drink  but  there  is  also  much  to  fear 
from  excessive  statements”)  declared  that  the  investigations  of 
the  Committee  of  Fifty  were  not  “missionary  tracts  or  moral 
appeals”  but  hard-boiled  “science”  and  went  on  to  print  the 
ever-memorable,  apodictical  sentiment  of  Dr.  J.  S.  Billings, 
“The  term  poison  belongs  with  equal  propriety  ...  to  coffee, 
pepper,  ginger  and  even  common  salt”  [as  to  alcohol].52 
President  Eliot’s  treatment  of  prohibition  was  colored  with  the 
exaggerated  language  which  his  colleague  censured  and  was 
clearly  without  the  substratum  of  knowledge  which  “science” 
is  supposed  to  give.  The  remarkable  social  results  of  prohibition 
in  Maine  which  lie  on  the  surface  in  the  statistics  of  state  and 
nation  were  not  even  mentioned,  but  the  adjectives  of  uncritical 
invective  were  laid  on  with  a  thick  brush.  The  Committee  of 
Fifty  Report  served  as  the  great  theoretical  breakwater  of  the 
U.  S.  Brewers’  Association  and  the  brewers  showed  their  ap¬ 
preciation  by  secretly  paying  one  of  its  chief  investigators  to 
be  for  years  their  dispenser  of  beer  science  to  the  American 
public. 

The  reactionary  attitude  of  the  academic  representatives  of 
Unitarianism  had  its  political  complement  in  the  unremitting 
opposition  to  prohibitory  legislation  of  its  leading  layman  in 


The  Good  Works  of  U nitarianism 


65 


public  life,  President  Taft.  The  veto  of  the  Webb-Kenyon  bill 
by  Mr.  Taft,  all  its  concomitant  circumstances  considered,  was 
as  discreditable  as  the  signing  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  by 
the  Unitarian  President  Fillmore. 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  III 

1.  C.R.  1914:539.  2.  C.R.  1924:178.  3.  Eliot,  The  Wise  Direction  of 

Church  Activities.  4.  Warren,  The  Religious  Aspects  of  the  Age.  5.  Annals 
of  the  American  Unitarian  Pulpit,  356.  6.  Tiffany,  Life  of  Dorothea  Dix,  181. 

7.  Goldwin  Smith,  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison,  9.  8.  Grimke,  Garrison,  303.  9.  Life 

of  Channing,  21,  74.  10.  C.R.  1916:510,  63.  11.  Memoir  of  F.  D.  Huntington, 

85,  180.  12.  W.  C.  Bryant,  275.  13.  A  Spiritual  Autobiography,  64,  65. 

14.  Tiffany,  C.  F.  Barnard,  152.  15.  Letters  and  Journals  of  S.  G.  Howe, 

Vol.  2,  49.  16.  C.R.  1918:612.  17.  C.R.  1917:379.  18.  U nitarianism:  Religion 

with  Liberty.  19.  Unitarian  Ideals.  20.  Christianity  as  a  Social  Force,  3. 
21.  C.R.  1912:782.  22.  Unitarianism,  9.  23.  The  Signs  of  the  Times,  58. 

24.  C.R.  1913:92.  25.  Washington  University,  25th  Anniversary,  33.  26.  Bellows, 

The  Claims  of  Antioch  College,  14,  12.  27.  Life  of  Mann,  488,  431,  477. 

28.  Weiss,  Parker,  Vol.  2,  342.  29.  Antioch  College  Bulletin,  1923,  July,  April. 
30.  The  Claims  of  Antioch,  19.  31.  Cooke,  Unitarianism,  397.  32.  C.R.  1911: 

584.  33.  Harvard  Memories,  36.  34.  Religious  Education,  1906,  88.  35.  Edu¬ 
cation  of  Henry  Adattis,  61,  68,  55.  36.  Report  of  the  Overman  Committee, 

777,  1084.  37.  Education  of  Henry  Adams,  63.  38.  C.R.  1914:643.  39.  C.R. 
1913:996.  40.  E.  C.  Moore,  Our  Common  Inheritances.  41.  C.R.  1917:134. 
42.  Pierce,  Memoir  of  Summer,  162.  43.  Life  of  Channing,  528.  44.  Weiss, 

Parker,  Vol.  1:381,  270,  271;  Vol.  2:110.  45.  Martyn,  W.  Phillips,  273. 

46.  Austin,  Life  of  Phillips,  135.  47.  Martyn,  Phillips,  261.  48.  Austin, 

Phillips,  326.  49.  Massachusetts  Licensing  Law  Reports,  1867.  50.  Physio¬ 
logical  Aspects,  Vol.  1,  31.  51.  Life  of  Channing,  474-5.  52.  The  Liquor 

Problem,  9,  8,  23. 


CHAPTER  IV 


UNITARIAN  SKEPTICISM  AND  UNITARIAN 

SCHEMES 

For  there  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares.  .  .  deny¬ 
ing  the  only  Lord  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

IF  the  early  Unitarians  were  living  and  should  make  ap¬ 
proaches  to  the  Christian  churches  of  today  many  of  them, 
no  doubt,  would  be  welcomed  back.  But  in  the  course  of 
the  century  Unitarianism  has  so  completely  repudiated  its 
Christian  inheritance  that  the  breach  is  now  irreparable.  Never 
can  there  be  common  ground  and  the  rapprochement  which 
Unitarianism  is  now  quietly  promoting  in  the  name  of  “unity” 
and  good  will  must  be  considered  as  tactics  of  a  not  too  credit¬ 
able  order. 

A  casual  glance  into  current  Unitarian  literature  will  make 
this  clear. 

Emerton’s  Unitarian  Thought  is  described  by  Prof.  F.  G. 
Peabody  as  “the  most  important  statement  of  Unitarian  ideas 
since  the  popular  setting-forth  of  our  denominational  beliefs  by 
James  Freeman  Clarke.”1  It  is  therefore  presumably  authori¬ 
tative.  It  certainly  exhibits  the  unbridgable  chasm  of  which  we 
speak. 

The  Unitarian  is  a  “this-side”  man.  Immortality  “is  not  one 
of  the  subjects  on  which  the  mind  of  Unitarians  is  inclined 
to  dwell.”  He  knows  nothing  of  answered  prayer.  “They  join 
with  all  rationally  thinking  men  in  rejecting  as  mischievous 
superstition  the  notion  that  the  wishes  of  men,  expressed  no 
matter  in  what  approved  form,  can  change  ever  so  slightly 
natural  laws.”*  Man  needs  no  redemption.  The  Unitarian 

*Rev.  J.  H.  Dietrich  speaks  of  men  as  “still  flabby  from  long  reliance 
on  prayer.”  C.R.  1918:585. 

Dr.  Dole  has  this  of  prayer:  “The  old-world  idea  of  prayer  is 
familiar.  .  .  .  The  good  God  moved  by  prayer  would  set  aside  the 

66 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  67 

believes  in  “the  capacity  of  human  nature  to  do  the  greatest 
things  that  human  life  requires.”  We  are  in  no  way  dependent 
on  Jesus.  “The  same  divine  quality  that  was  in  Jesus  is  also 
in  every  man  that  is  born  into  the  world.  .  .  .  Jesus’  victory 
was  won,  as  all  human  victories  must  be  won,  after  bitter 
struggles  with  his  own  lesser  self.  .  . 

The  narrative  of  Christ’s  birth  of  a  virgin  mother  is  “an 
insult  to  motherhood.”  The  word  “sin”  is  in  Prof.  Emerton’s 
book  frequently  enclosed  in  quotation  marks  as  a  preposterous 
notion  of  the  orthodox.  “The  Unitarian  asserts  as  positively  as 
words  can  do  it  the  capacity  of  man  to  do  what  is  right  in  the 
sight  of  God.  .  .  .  To  have  been  bought  off  from  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  his  own  wrong  by  the  sacrifice  of  some  one  else 
appears  a  meanness  that  in  common  life  would  be  branded  with 
the  scorn  of  every  high-minded  man.”f 

Jesus  is  not  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega.  “He  was  not  the 
first :  he  will  not  be  the  last.”  He  was  but  “one  in  a  long  line 
of  revealers  to  men  of  the  law  by  which  they  are  called  upon 
to  live.”  And  to  His  revelation  there  seem  to  be  in  Prof.  Emer¬ 
ton’s  mind  elements  of  imposture.  “He  had  the  power  of 
making  a  credulous  people  believe  that  he  was  in  a  highly 
specific  sense  the  direct  agent  of  God.”  Doctrines  of  revelation 
in  the  Christian  sense  are  considered  absurd  and  reprehensible. 

visible  machinery  of  second  causes  in  order  to  meet  the  need  of  his 
worshippers.  Such  is  the  childish  conception  of  prayer  still  held  by 
multitudes  whose  nurses  and  mothers  have  taught  them  so.  As  soon  as 
men  begin  to  think  straight,  that  is  to  think  the  thoughts  of  civilized 
man,  the  childish  conception  of  prayer  fades  away.” — The  Religion  of  a 
Gentleman ,  81. 

*“If  criticism  should  finally  render  it  highly  improbable  that  Jesus 
on  the  cross  said  ‘Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do’  we  need  not  on  that  account  be  depressed.  The  reason  becomes 
clear  the  moment  we  can  answer  the  question  how  then  did  the  story 
of  this  beautiful  forgiving,  quenchless  love  arise?  It  is  because  we 
ourselves  are  capable  of  doing  this  very  thing ,  because  this  goodness, 
this  divine  life  is  struggling  to  express  itself  in  us  and  has  led  to  create 
our  spiritual  hero  and  put  into  his  legend  all  that  we  need  him  to  have.” 
— Rev.  Dr.  Dodson,  C.R.  1920:560. 

tThe  Rev.  Charles  Pease  says:  “The  awakened  portion  of  mankind 
cannot  hang  around  the  old  traditional  band-wagon  hoping  to  catch 
a  tune  it  can  whistle.  ...  Far  from  a  slavish  imitation  of  Jesus  in 


68 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


“It  would  be  as  mean  to  ask  for  truth  without  work  as  it  is  to 
ask  for  ‘salvation’  as  the  free  gift  of  anyone.” 

Let  us  dip  into  another  Unitarian  classic. 

In  John  W.  Chadwick’s  Old  and  New  Unitarian  Belief  one 
meets  the  customary  superciliousness.  “That  Jesus  was  a  per¬ 
fect  man  is  an  assertion  as  impossible  to  prove  as  that  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Mars  eat  nothing  but  unleavened  bread.  .  .  .  Certainly 
there  are  things  about  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament  which  are 
not  helpful  to  the  doctrine  of  his  impeccability,  for  example,  that 
dreadful  treatment  of  his  mother  T  2 

“It  were  a  terrible  mistake  to  think  that  any  life,  albeit  that 
of  Jesus  .  .  .  could  fully  answer  to  our  utmost  need.  Man¬ 
kind  needs  for  its  salvation  all  the  best  that  science,  art,  philoso¬ 
phy,  religion,  literature  and  life  contain  within  their  boundless 
scope.  ...  To  imagine  that  we  have  a  perfect  revelation  [of 
God’s  perfection]  in  the  provincial  life  of  Jesus  ...  is  to 

order  to  be  loyal  to  him  or  of  questioning  him  ‘What  would  Jesus  do?’ 
when  the  real  question  is,  ‘What  should  I  do?’  ...  It  is  Jesusism  that 
we  must  be  done  with,  Jesusism  is  to  us  what  Mosaicism  was  to  Jesus, 
the  same  overburdened  orthodoxy  rendered  lifeless  by  traditions  and 
conflicting  inter pretations.”  C.R.  1917:415. 

“What  the  human  race  needs  is  not  redemption  but  education.  What 
the  sinful  man  needs  is  not  redemption  but  recovery.  .  .  .  Redemption 
is  external,  something  done  for  us.  Recovery  is  natural,  something  done 
by  ourselves.  .  .  .  Nothing  can  be  wiped  out  that  has  ever  been.  Some 
effect  of  it  must  remain.  Every  thought,  word,  deed,  becomes  a  cause 
of  something  else  which  in  its  turn  becomes  a  cause  and  so  on.  There 
is  no  end  of  it.  The  past  lives  on  forever.  In  scientific  literalness  it 
cannot  be  rubbed  out.” — Rev.  Minot  Simons,  Redemption  or  Recovery, 
3-6.  “We  have  no  prayers  that  beg  God  to  do  it  all.  You  cannot  think 
of  a  Unitarian  congregation  singing  ‘Jesus  paid  it  all,  all  the  debt  I 
owe.’  We  have  no  hymns  in  our  books  that  cry,  ‘Great  God,  how  in¬ 
finite  thou  art,  what  worthless  worms  are  we.’  ” — Rev.  George  Kent, 
C.R.  1919:181. 

Rev.  Maxwell  Savage  thinks  of  Christianity  as  an  easy  way  to  com¬ 
bine  sin  and  salvation.  “The  old  faith  is  at  best  magic,  make-believe, 
and  involves  short  cuts  and  individual  salvation.  .  .  .  The  gods  in 
Valhalla  are  reported  to  have  feasted  and  drunk  and  then  risen  and 
fought,  hacking  each  other  to  pieces;  then  a  little  magic  and  they  were 
made  whole  again,  to  resume  their  feasting  and  drinking.  So  it  seems 
to  me  it  has  been  under  the  old  religious  teachings.  People  could  enjoy 
the  pleasures  of  life,  they  could  live  selfishly,  they  could  hack  to  pieces 
their  own  happiness  and  the  happiness  of  others  and  then  in  the 
name  of  religion  a  little  magic  and  they  were  made  whole.” 
C.R.  1915:973. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  69 


imagine  as  unworthily  as  it  is  possible  for  men  of  natural  intel¬ 
ligence  to  do.  .  .  .  It  is  not  less  than  impious  to  specialize  and 
isolate  him  as  he  has  been  specialized  and  isolated  in  the  theology 
and  worship  of  the  Christian  church.  The  first  born  of  many 
brethren !  That  he  may  have  been  in  Joseph’s  narrow  house  but 
in  the  countless  family  of  God  he  was  not  the  first.  Millions  of 
brethren  had  preceded  him.  .  .  .  Today  our  criticism,  science, 
and  philosophy  welcome  him  into  the  largeness  of  humanity. 
Let  us  be  patient.  Let  us  give  him  time  and  thus  rescued  and 
restored  he  shall  yet  be  the  object  of  a  more  sincere  affection 
Of  the  doctrines  of  grace  Chadwick  says:  “Nothing  is  surer 
than  that  could  Jesus  have  encountered  [them]  he  would  have 
said,  ‘Depart  from  me;  I  never  knew  you.’  ”3 

Unitarian  Sunday-schools  are  provided  with  a  Catechism  of 
Liberal  Faith  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dole.  “What  made  it  easy  for 
early  men  to  think  of  Jesus  as  the  son  of  God?”  he  asks,  and 
the  answer  comes,  “Men  had  already  been  used  to  thinking  of 
their  heroes  as  sons  of  God.” 

Q.  Did  Jesus  ever  claim  to  be  more  than  a  true  man? 

A.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  made  such  a  claim. 

Q.  Did  Jesus  intend  to  establish  a  new  religion? 

A.  There  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  his  intention. 

Q.  Did  he  teach  new  doctrines? 

A.  No,  he  appealed  to  what  was  already  in  the  thought  of  his  people. 

Q.  Have  other  great  teachers  of  religion  taught  like  Jesus? 

A.  Yes,  many  of  the  noblest  teachings  of  China,  India,  Persia,  Greece 
and  Rome  are  like  Jesus’  words. 

Q.  What  is  the  working  of  sin  in  the  moral  realm? 

A.  Sin,  as  soon  as  it  shows  its  really  repulsive  character,  urges  men  to 
avoid  it  and  to  seek  moral  health  and  life. 

Q.  To  what  may  we  liken  the  lessons  of  “evil”? 

A.  They  are  like  the  stops,  the  dots  and  the  dashes  in  writing  which  if 
it  went  on  smoothly  in  one  continuous  line  would  give  us  no  sense. 

Q.  What  gospel  may  we  tell  to  “the  bad”  ? 

A.  It  is  a  gospel  that  the  bad  life  is  not  man’s  true  nature.  It  is  a 
gospel  that  he  can  forsake  and  ought  to  forsake  the  evil  way  and 
that  he  will  then  become  like  a  new  creature  as  soon  as  he  lets  the 
electric  touch  of  good  will  move  his  soul.4 


70 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


The  American  Unitarian  Association  conducts  a  large  propa¬ 
ganda  chiefly  among  members  of  Christian  churches  by  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  free  pamphlets.*  There  are  some  three  hundred 
on  its  list.  I  suppose  it  would  be  fair  to  say  that  the  purpose 
of  these  publications  above  all  others  is  to  break  down  the  central 
teaching  of  historic  Christianity  regarding  redemption  through 
a  divine  Saviour. 

It  is  noticeable  that  they  make  no  refutation  of  Romanism, 
grown  to  such  proportions  in  Boston,  or  of  Christian  Science, 
the  milk  sister  of  Emersonism  and  bred  in  the  full  light  of  New 
England’s  ville-lumiere.  Indeed  of  this  delusion  the  President  of 
the  American  Unitarian  Association  says,  “Its  general  influence 
is  undeniably  wholesome”3  and  his  father,  President  Eliot,  seems 
to  feel  it  and  other  similar  sects  to  be  precious  auxiliaries  in 
breaking  down  the  hated  evangelical  faith.  In  an  address  on 
The  Religion  of  the  Future,  after  dwelling  with  satisfaction 
on  the  fact  that  millions  of  Americans  now  find  their  practical 
religion  in  Masonic  lodges,  granges,  Odd-fellows’  lodges  and 
trades  unions  he  continues:  “The  spiritualists ,  Christian  Scien¬ 
tists  and  mental  healers  of  all  sorts  manifest  a  good  deal  of  abil¬ 
ity  to  draw  people  away  from  the  traditional  churches  and  to 
discredit  traditional  dogmas  and  formal  creeds 

Any  claptrap,  then,  is  looked  upon  indulgently  or  with  indif¬ 
ference  but  when  it  comes  to  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  the 
whole  depth  of  bitterness  begins  to  stir.  In  Symphony  Hall 
(Feb.,  ’17)  the  elder  Eliot  put  this  teaching  in  the  forefront  of 
his  attack.  “We  have  come  hither  in  mass  first  to  rejoice  and 
give  thanks  together  for  our  deliverance  from  all  the  creeds 
and  dogmas  of  the  older  churches  .  .  .  and  from  those  concep¬ 
tions  of  Deity  which  are  implied  in  the  words  * propitiation / 
*  expiation  and  ‘vicarious  atonement *  ”7 

In  the  catalogue  of  this  official  literature  of  Unitarianism  one 
finds  in  hundreds  of  numbers  perhaps  one  or  two  which  combat 

*Some  years  a  million  pamphlets  go  out  from  the  American  Unita¬ 
rian  Association.  Local  parishes  also  send  them  out  continually  by  the 
thousands.  C.R.  1920:157. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  arid  Unitarian  Schemes  71 

materialism  and  atheism.  But  on  the  whole  one  gets  the  impres¬ 
sion  that  Unitarians  would  far  rather  see  Christians  lapse  alto¬ 
gether,  even  from  belief  in  God  and  immortality,  than  abide  in 
evangelical  Christianity.  Thus  in  a  recent  tract  From  Authority 
to  Freedom  in  Religion  *  Dr.  Rainsford’s  autobiography  and 
Dr.  McConnell’s  Confessions  of  an  Old  Priest  are  reviewed 
with  delighted  satisfaction.  But  Dr.  Rainsford  apparently  has 
no  confidence  in  a  life  after  death9  and  Dr.  McConnell’s  account 
of  his  spiritual  shipwreck  is  unsurpassed  in  distressing  hopeless¬ 
ness. 

“We  do  not  call  him  the  Saviour,”  says  Dr.  A.  M.  Rihbany, 
in  one  of  these  official  tracts,  “because  we  are  certain  that 
humanity  has  had  as  many  saviours  as  it  has  had  truly  good  men 
and  women.  ...  No  man  can  be  transformed  from  bad  to  good 
vicariously  any  more  than  he  can  be  healed  from  an  illness 
through  another’s  receiving  medical  treatment  for  him.  .  .  . 
Nor  would  we  lapse  into  the  unwarrantable  mystical  mood  and 
implore  the  long-departed  Jesus  to  do  for  us  that  which  we  only 
can  and  must  do  for  ourselves.  We  would  no  more  do  this 
than  we  would  pray  to  Washington  and  Lincoln.  .  .  .  What  a 
glorious  world  this  would  be  ...  if  it  were  really  true  that 
Jesus  and  his  Gospel  are  the  small  things  of  the  past,  outgrown 
and  antiquated.  Imagine  a  world  whose  manhood  transcends 
that  of  Jesus  as  his  transcended  the  manhood  of  the  cave  man.”10 

“We  do  not  believe  it  possible,”  echoes  E.  E.  Hale,  “for 
any  substituted  being  to  take  the  consequences  of  a  man’s  sin  or 
to  turn  over  to  him  a  fixed  quota  of  blessedness.” 11 

In  an  address  on  the  “Religion  of  the  Future”  delivered  by 
President  Eliot  in  1909  to  the  Harvard  Summer  School  of 
Theology,  there  went  along  with  the  usual  anti-creedal  fulmina- 
tion  a  practical  abdication  of  the  hope  of  a  future  life.  Yet  the 
speaker  describes  Unitarianism  elsewhere  as  “a  blessed  faith  to 
live  by  and  die  by.”12 

“To  a  human  soul  lodged  in  an  imperfect,  feeble,  or  suffering 
body,”  he  says,  “some  of  the  older  religions  have  held  out  the 
expectation  of  deliverance  by  death  and  of  entrance  upon  a  rich, 


72 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


competent  and  happy  life — in  short  have  offered  a  second  life 
presumably  immortal  under  the  happiest  conditions.  .  .  .  Can 
the  future  religion  promise  that  sort  of  compensation  for  the  ills 
of  this  world  any  more  than  it  can  promise  miraculous  aid 
against  threatened  disaster?  A  candid  reply  to  this  inquiry 
involves  the  statement  that  in  the  future  religion  there  will  be 
nothing  supernatural.  ...  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the 
completely  natural  quality  of  the  future  religion  excludes  from  it 
many  of  the  religious  compensations  and  consolations  of  the  past. 
.  .  .  The  new  religion  will  not  attempt  to  reconcile  men  and 
women  to  present  ills  hy  promises  of  future  blessedness  either 
for  themselves  or  for  others .  Such  promises  have  done  infinite 
mischief  in  the  world  by  inducing  men  to  be  patient  under  suf¬ 
ferings  or  deprivations  against  which  they  should  have  inces¬ 
santly  struggled .”13 

“We  leave  heaven  to  the  sparrows”  was  the  more  compact 
utterance  of  Heinrich  Heine.  What  have  either  Eliot  or  Heine 
in  common  with  those  whose  hearts  are  fixed  on  the  words,  “I 
go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you”  ? 

President  Eliot  has  for  decades  delighted  to  pace  in  public 
places  defying  the  armies  of  the  living  God.  The  profound 
aversion  of  Unitarians  for  the  Christian  church  finds  expression 
in  his  bitter  sentences.  t(The  established  and  conventional 
churches  manifest  little  power  to  promote  either  love  to  God  or 
love  to  their  neighbor.  .  .  .  The  effective  organizations  for  such 
pitifully  small  relief  as  can  be  given  [for  suffering  Europe]  are 
for  the  most  part  not  religious  but  secular.  .  .  .  The  effective 
works  of  mercy  are  performed  not  chiefly  by  representatives  of 
the  churches  .  .  .  but  by  men  and  women  who  understand  how 
to  get  food  to  the  starving.  ...  In  former  times  the  Christian 
churches  were  the  almoners  for  the  poor  and  desolate  and  the 
chief  works  of  mercy  were  carried  on  by  men  and  women  espe¬ 
cially  commissioned  by  the  Christian  church.  Now  secular  soci¬ 
eties  administered  by  laymen  carry  on  many  of  the  principal 
movements  for  the  improvement  of  society.”  As  representative 
of  these  charities  Eliot  mentions  among  others  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  73 

and  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.,  actually  asserting  that  they  with  hospitals, 
etc.,  are  supported  by  people  “whose  motive  power  is  not 
derived  from  the  churches.”  Of  course  the  exact  contrary  is 
true.14 

The  speculative  opinions  of  one  who  can  so  grossly  misrepre¬ 
sent  a  matter  of  simple  fact  are  bound  to  be  of  small  conse¬ 
quence.  With  this  aged  Sadducee  the  old  watch-cry  about  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  seems  to  have  fallen  into  the  background. 
“Thoughtful  people  have  dismissed  the  ideas  of  God  as  monarch, 
king,  or  lord  of  hosts.  .  .  .  Twentieth  century  people  recognize 
God  chiefly  in  the  wonderful  energies  of  sound,  light,  electricity, 
in  the  vital  processes  of  plants  and  animals,  in  human  loves  and 
aspiration  and  in  the  evolution  of  human  society.”  So  does 
Unitarianism  run  into  the  sands  of  a  pantheistic  materialism.15 

Rev.  C.  F.  Potter  revolts  against  the  idea  of  a  King  eternal, 
immortal,  invisible,  only  wise  God.  “The  laymen  of  the  present 
day  recognize  that  the  time  of  kingship  is  passed,  that  it  is  no 
longer  a  compliment  to  call  God,  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of 
Lords.  Those  who  believe  in  liberty  and  democracy  and  law 
as  essential  to  human  progress  are  much  further  on  the  road 
to  real  religion  than  the  supine  suppliants  of  a  monarchic 
God/'16 

Naturally  when  God  is  stripped  of  all  might  and  majesty  he 
no  longer  invites  to  prayer.  Man  becomes  the  central  point  in 
the  universe  and  God  “the  supine  suppliant.”  Through  long 
centuries  mankind  has  prayed  to  God,”  the  Rev.  C.  W.  Casson 
tells  us,  “to  establish  right  and  justice  on  the  earth.  But  there 
grows  the  conviction  that  through  long  centuries  God  has 
prayed  to  man  this  self-same  prayer  and  that  the  stirring  of 
humanity  today  toward  the  attainment  of  right  and  justice  is 
but  the  answer  at  last  to  the  prayer  of  God.”17  Nor,  according 
to  M.  J.  Savage,  is  it  good  taste  to  sing  hymns  or  utter  words 
of  praise  to  an  infinite  being.  For  it  belittles  our  idea  of  him  to 
think  such  fulsome  flattery  acceptable  to  him ! 

The  step  from  such  utterances  to  stark  atheism  is  indeed  short 
and  has  been  taken  by  a  considerable  fraction  of  the  Unitarian 


74 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


ministry.  The  polite  name  given  it  is  “humanism.”  Dr.  C.  W. 
Reese  [a  one-time  Baptist]  is  quoted  as  saying  that  “as  far  as 
he  is  concerned  the  idea  of  God  plays  no  important  part  in  his 
religion.  .  .  .  Theism  is  philosophically  possible  but  not  religi¬ 
ously  necessary.”*19 

Of  utterances  of  this  type  the  Unitarian  Dr.  Dodson  says, 
“We  find  that  theism  is  being  denied  by  men  who  speak  as 
representatives  of  our  movement  and  who  feel  that  they  have  a 
right  to  do  so  since  we  stand  for  nothing  but  the  liberty  to  stand 
for  anything  or  for  nothing  at  all.  A  speaker  at  the  Western 
Conference  in  May  declared  in  a  clear,  sincere  and  forceful 
address  that  theism  must  be  given  up,  that  the  thought  of  God 
will  have  to  go,  that  the  long  evolution  of  the  idea  of  God  is  to 
end  in  no  idea  at  all  and  that  the  future  belongs  to  an  atheistic 
humanism. 

“When  a  protest  was  made  to  the  Western  secretary 
stating  that  such  addresses  ought  not  to  be  given  under  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  which  they  will  naturally  be  regarded  as  repre¬ 
sentative  he  defended  his  action,  saying  we  stand  for  nothing 
but  liberty. 

“Consider  what  this  means.  A  man  whose  business  is  largely 
that  of  securing  ministers  for  churches  repeatedly  states  that  he 

*Mr.  C.  B.  Lockwood  writes:  “Every  honest  man  knows  that  there 
is  no  supernatural  regeneration,  conversion,  or  salvation.  ...  As  well 
talk  of  a  supernatural  God.  .  .  .  There  is  no  getting  religion  but  by 
living  it  and  that  is  man’s  job  and  not  God’s.  .  .  .  The  kingdom 
God  is  in  humanity  and  unless  wTe  find  it  there  we  shall  never  find  it.” 
C.R.  1919:317.  “Liberalism  must  remain  undogmatic  in  regard  to  God. 
It  is  building  a  religion  that  would  not  be  shaken  even  if  the  old 
thought  of  God  were  outgrown.”  1920:984.  Prof.  F.  C.  Doan,  “Our 
sons  will  look  on  humanity  as  the  center  of  this  evolving  life.  .  .  . 
They  will  see  perfection  as  a  quality  that  has  only  just  come  to  pass 
in  the  souls  of  men.  ...  The  life  of  the  world  has  become  pregnant 
and  divine  in  humanity.  They  will  name  God  as  the  world-democrat, 
the  eternal  Man.  They  will  bow  down  and  worship  him.  Today  he  is 
a  man;  one  day  who  knows  if  we  shall  any  longer  call  him  a  man? 
All  this  is  democracy.”  1912:984.  In  Religion  and  the  Modern  Man 
Prof.  Doan  declares  God  to  be  essentially  and  simply  just  the  spirit  of 
humanity.  65.  .  .  .  “We  and  he  [i.  e.,  God]  being  perishable  in  our 
origin  will  surely  die  the  death,  will  surely  subside  into  the  great,  the 
very  amorphous,  the  very  cosmic  formless  beast  whence  we  and  he 
arose.” — 112,  Quoted  in  C.R.  1910:156. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  IS 

does  not  consider  theism  as  essential  but  is  satisfied  with  men 
who  preach  the  gospel  of  atheistic  humanism. 

“The  public  will  be  still  more  puzzled  by  a  religious  fellow¬ 
ship  in  which  atheism  and  faith  in  God  are  preached  side  by 
side.  And  ministers  the  joy  of  whose  life  is  to  preach  a  theistic 
faith  naturally  cannot  be  enthusiastic  in  winning  men  and 
women  to  a  church  other  ministers  of  which  regard  that  faith  as 
a  superstition.  .  .  .  The  question  presses  whether  the  time  has 
not  come  when  Unitarian  churches  must  take  some  position. 
.  .  .  If  atheism  is  to  be  preached  in  our  name  no  money  .  .  . 
can  save  us  from  the  extinction  which  confusion  and  negation 
deserve.”20 

Another  ex-Baptist,  Mr.  Pinkham,  declares  that  these  whom 
Dr.  Dodson  mentions  are  “among  our  most  successful  pastors. 
Their  humanistic  point  of  view  gives  freshness  and  power  to 
their  pulpit  messages.  It  is  the  real  God  that  they  proclaim,  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  that  dwell  in  humanity.”21  One  of  these 
humanists  is  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Dietrich  of  the  Minneapolis  Uni¬ 
tarian  church. 

“The  character  of  man’s  life  upon  this  planet”  says  Mr. 
Dietrich,  “depends  not  upon  divine  interventions  nor  upon 
prayer  but  upon  what  we  ourselves  are  and  what  we  ourselves 
do.”  “We  do  not  believe  in  that  friendly  providence  which  the 
other  religious  sects  feel  sure  will  establish  the  Kingdom  of 
God.”  Our  Unitarian  faith  “does  not  need  more  priests  and 
prayers  and  holy  books.  .  .  .  But  it  does  need  the  never-ending 
voice  of  the  prophet  going  up  and  down  the  land  crying,  ' Pre¬ 
pare  ye  the  way  of  mankind  and  make  its  way  straight  *  ” 

“The  God  of  the  Christian  theology  has  been  taken  away. 
.  .  .  This  personal  God  with  the  big  stick  has  been  taken  away. 
Not  only  has  the  cruel  personal  God  been  taken  away  but  the 
idea  of  God  as  a  father  and  loving  guide  for  his  children  has 
been  taken  away.  The  many  cases  in  which  individuals  have  to 
suffer  .  .  .  forces  us  to  give  up  the  idea  that  we  are  under  the 
protection  of  an  external  and  beneficent  Providence.  In  its 
place  we  recognize  a  mighty  evolutionary  force  .  .  .  the  Great 


76  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

Unknowable.  Modern  knowledge  has  also  taken  away  the  Bible 
as  the  W ord  of  God  .  .  .  and  when  you  realize  what  a  cruel 
and  foolish  Word  of  God  that  was  you  surely  are  not  sorry.” 

“Along  with  the  idea  of  the  Christian  God  has  gone  the  belief 
in  the  power  of  prayer.  Another  thing  which  has  been  taken 
away  is  the  theory  that  Jesus  is  saviour  alone  of  humanity. 
...  In  his  place  we  put  a  whole  shining  galaxy  of  men  and 
women  whose  smile  is  the  light  of  the  centuries.  .  .  .  And  along 
with  belief  in  endless  punishment  has  gone  the  theory  of  the 
Christian  heaven.  In  its  place  modern  thought  has  not  been 
able  to  put  anything  definite.  ...  So  I  wish  very  much  for  the 
sake  of  humanity  to  stop  men  from  yearning  after  the  great 
undiscovered  future.”22 

On  the  March  13,  1919,  cover  of  the  Christian  Register 
[nailed  to  the  very  masthead]  a  quotation  is  printed  from 
another  address  of  Mr.  Dietrich  and  the  editor  assures  us  that 
it  represents  the  opinion  of  many  Unitarians.  The  need  of  our 
day  is  said  to  be  “a  religion  which  teaches  that  the  hands  which 
have  heretofore  been  raised  in  supplication  must  be  turned  to 
the  tasks  about  us.”  The  Unitarian  Laymen’s  League  declares 
that  “we  worship  the  living  God,  our  Father  and  our  Friend,” 
but  the  theoreticians  of  their  denomination  have  got  far  beyond 
these  naive  ideas.  “Democratized  religion,”  says  E.  H.  Ree- 
man,  “will  take  God  out  of  the  clouds  and  place  him  definitely 
in  the  heart  of  man.  He  walks  with  the  crowds  of  Chicago  by 
the  shores  of  Michigan  as  surely  as  he  walked  by  the  shores  of 
Gennesaret.  He  suffers  and  triumphs  in  the  trenches  of  the 
battlefield  as  surely  ...  as  on  the  cross  of  Calvary.”23  Of 
G.  W.  Cooke  who  develops  similar  ideas  in  The  Social  Evolu¬ 
tion  of  Religion  Dr.  Dodson  says,  “It  would  seem  better  frankly 
to  avow  atheism  than  to  dress  it  in  a  religious  garb.  If  there 
is  really  no  God,  if  we  are  orphans,  if  we  are  being  pushed  up 
and  on  by  some  blind,  groping,  cosmical  force  instead  of  being 
lifted  into  communion  with  the  Father  who  is  perfect,  by  all 
means  let  us  know  it  and  endure  it  as  well  as  we  can.  .  .  . 
A  purely  immanential  view  of  God  which  equates  God  with 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  77 


humanity  leaves  us  nothing  higher  than  a  humanity  to  worship. 
We  cannot  worship  either  ourselves  or  other  people.”24 

One  finds  repeated  intimations  of  atheism  in  the  Unitarian 
organ.  “As  God  is  not  the  foundation  principle  of  our  faith 
why,”  asks  Mr.  J.  C.  Allen,  “insist  on  conformity.  ...  7/ 
would  be  better  if  we  had  to  choose  between  them  to  believe  in 
Man  and  not  in  God  than  in  God  and  not  in  Man /'25  “Mod¬ 
ern  religion  is  frankly  humanistic  rather  than  theistic,”  writes 
the  Rev.  Earl  F.  Cook,  “There  have  been  many  gods  in  history 
which  have  only  cultural  reality  like  Zeus  and  Thor.  .  .  . 
Modern  religion  says  that  its  conception  is  more  mature  than 
these  but  it  does  not  say  that  its  idea  of  what  men  call  divine 
.  .  .  is  any  more  free  from  decay  and  death  than  former  con¬ 
ceptions.  .  .  .  Even  if  the  thought  of  God  disappeared  and  no 
longer  bothered  and  blessed  mankind  modern  religion  would  not 
be  hampered  in  its  essential  work ”2Q  Dr.  J.  H.  Holmes  writes 
that  <(most  of  us  would  say  we  believe  in  God  .  .  .  but  some  of 
us  don  t  and  they  are  as  welcome  to  our  church  as  any  others. 
We  regard  it  as  foolish  to  define  religion  in  terms  of  a  theism- 
atheism  controversy  as  in  terms  of  a  Unitarian-Trinitarian  con¬ 
troversy.”27 

And  another  Unitarian,  Mr.  Tandberg,  remarks  sympatheti¬ 
cally,  “It  is  intensely  interesting  to  contemplate  that  in  the 
remarkable  experiment  of  Mr.  Holmes  and  the  Community 
church  we  have  actually  witnessed  the  establishment  of  a  church 
without  a  God."28 

To  present-day  Unitarians  the  death  of  our  Lord  has  no 
unique  or  doctrinal  significance.  In  the  Unitarian  Anniversary 
Week  of  1913  Dr.  Edward  Cummings  proposed  the  star  of 
Bethlehem  as  a  more  suitable  emblem  for  the  Christian  faith 
than  the  cross.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Weeks,  in  reporting  the 
incident,  described  it  as  an  “outburst  of  that  long-smothered 
conviction  that  the  gospel  of  Jesus  as  against  the  effete  religion 
of  the  cross  is  the  only  remedy  yet  known  for  the  world’s  woe 
and  sorrow.”29  It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  Mr.  Weeks 
should  transform  the  communion  into  a  memorial  for  departed 


78 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


friends  and  church  members.  “The  name  of  Jesus  should  have 
only  a  relative  and  incidental  place  in  the  order  of  service  while 
the  superstitious  and  traditional  incidents  which  characterize  the 
verbiage  of  the  historic  communion  should  not  be  allowed  to  cor¬ 
rupt  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  our  holy  service /'30 

In  many  Unitarian  churches  the  communion  is  no  longer 
observed;  in  others  rarely.  In  some  water  takes  the  place  of 
wine  as  if  to  emphasize  the  rejection  of  the  precious  blood.  In 
some  churches  the  elements  are  placed  on  the  table,  the  organ 
plays  “He  was  rejected  of  men”  from  the  “Messiah”  and  the 
congregation  is  dismissed  without  partaking.31  “The  com¬ 
munion,”  writes  a  Unitarian  minister,  “is  very  repulsive  to  me. 
The  ideas  of  sacrifice  and  atonement  are  barbarous  and  inhuman. 
.  .  .  As  liberals  in  religion  why  should  we  commemorate  the 
death  of  Jesus?  .  .  .  Jesus  is  not  the  centre  of  our  religion . 
.  .  .  Why  do  not  we  commemorate  the  life  of  Emerson  or 
Socrates  or  of  Immanuel  Kant?  .  .  .  Many  men  and  women 
who  might  otherwise  be  loyal  recruits  and  helpful  workers  in 
the  church  are  kept  from  association  with  the  church  by  the 
presence  of  the  communion  service.  As  here  celebrated  four 
times  a  year  among  a  small  number  of  people  it  holds  a  very 
precarious  position  in  our  forms  of  worship.”32 

When  a  Unitarian  woman  complained  in  the  Christian  Reg¬ 
ister  that  at  Easter  for  three  years  the  Easter  Scripture  story 
was  not  read  nor  Easter  hymns  sung,  the  Rev.  G.  T.  Ashley 
retorted  in  an  open  letter.  “Why  should  the  Easter  story  in 
the  Bible  be  read  as  the  basis  of  religious  worship  in  a  Unitarian 
church  when  all  Unitarians  look  upon  it  as  a  myth,  and  not  a 
harmless  myth  either,  but  one  that  has  been  a  fruitful  source 
of  a  large  part  of  the  world’s  superstition.  .  .  .  Easter  is  not 
of  Christian  origin  but  pagan.”33  Dr.  Dietrich  celebrates 
Christmas  “as  an  old  heathen  custom.  It  is  a  human  holiday. 
I  emphasize  the  natural  fact  on  which  this  old  mid-winter  fes¬ 
tival  is  founded  not  because  I  love  Jesus  less  but  that  1  love 
what  is  older  and  greater  and  grander  than  Jesus  more.  .  .  . 
Why  should  we  not  pay  our  respects  to  the  sun  at  this  time ,  the 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  79 


sun  upon  whom  man  and  all  living  creatures  are  dependent f 
For  generations  we  have  been  taught  that  we  were  created  and 
sustained  by  an  unseen  hand ,  but  when  we  face  the  real  fact, 
whatever  power  may  be  back  of  the  phenomena  of  the  universe, 
the  sun  is  that  by  which  we  live.  ...  To  the  early  fathers  of 
the  race  the  sun  was  a  living  being,  a  god,  and  in  view  of  the  life 
he  begets  in  us  and  awakes  anew  and  afresh  each  year  in  the 
world  this  seems  far  nearer  the  truth  than  the  view  that  is  com¬ 
monly  taken.  Why  fear  then  to  recognize  our  dependence  upon 
the  sun?  Why  hesitate  to  look  up  and  bless  him?  Why  fail  to 
praise  him?  Our  life  and  all  earthly  life  depends  upon  him.  If 
he  dies  we  die. 

“This  is  not  banishing  divinity  from  the  world.  It  is  putting 
divinity  into  the  world  instead  of  viewing  it  as  the  sole  occupant 
of  empty  space.”34 

Here  we  have  the  terminal  bud  of  a  paganized  Unitarianism. 

More  and  more  this  New  England  Sadduceeism  repudiates  the 
hope  of  a  life  to  come.  Such  a  personal  hope  is  now  often  rep¬ 
resented  as  selfish  and  petty.  Its  establishment  in  the  fact  of 
Christ’s  resurrection  is  altogether  gone.  In  reading  the  grave¬ 
stones  of  notables  in  the  Unitarian  necropolis  at  Mt.  Auburn 
I  have  been  struck  with  the  fact  that  not  in  a  single  instance 
observed  is  a  line  of  Scripture  to  be  found  on  them.  That 
comfort  and  support  has  vanished.  Further  in  reading  Uni¬ 
tarian  biography  I  fail  to  find  [and  this  is  true  of  non-Christian 
deaths  generally]  a  single  record  of  a  triumphant  death-bed. 
Patience  and  stoicism,  no  doubt,  but  never  the  sight  of  the 
heavens  opened  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the  right 
hand  of  God.  No  cries  of  “victory,”  “glory,”  “joy,”  “heaven,” 
“Christ.”  D.  L.  Moody  came  out  of  a  Unitarian  home. 
Does  any  one  believe  that  if  his  life  had  been  spent  in  expound¬ 
ing  the  perniciousness  of  creeds  instead  of  winning  souls  to 
Christ  the  beatific  vision  of  his  last  hours  would  have  been  his?* 

I  suppose  there  was  never  a  better  friend  of  man  in  New 

*The  Rev.  Edward  Cummings  speaks  of  heaven  as  “that  ridiculous 
spiritual  roof-garden  in  the  next  world.”  C.R.  1913:779. 


80 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


England  than  Dr.  Samuel  G.  Howe,  the  helper  of  the  blind,  the 
deaf,  the  slave,  the  needy.  Certainly  if  human  merit  could  give 
assurance  of  life  hereafter  this  Unitarian  philanthropist  ought 
to  have  had  it  in  his  last  hours.  Yet  his  biographer  prints  two 
letters  which  read : 

“It  was  very  dark  during  a  week.  I  saw  no  light  or  hope 
for  this  world  and  was  uneasy  and  unhappy  about  the  next.” 
And  again,  “Why  cannot  we  two  mourning  fathers  enjoy  the 
hope  of  reunion  in  full  assurance  and  faith  without  the  damning 
doubt.  I  vainly  hope  against  hope.” 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  that  his  only  stay  is  the  instinct  of 
immortality  implanted  in  all  men. 

Another  great  philanthropist  of  the  time  had  a  firmer  rock  to 
build  on. 

“I  am  come  to  that  stage  of  my  pilgrimage,”  wrote  Mrs. 
Beecher  Stowe,  “that  is  within  sight  of  the  river  of  death  and  I 
feel  that  now  I  must  have  all  in  readiness  day  and  night  for  the 
messenger  of  the  King.  I  have  sometimes  had  in  my  sleep 
strange  perceptions  of  a  vivid  spiritual  life  near  to  and  with 
Christ  and  multitudes  of  holy  ones  and  the  joy  of  it  is  like  no 
other  joy.  It  cannot  be  told  in  the  language  of  the  world. 
What  I  then  have  I  know  with  absolute  certainty  yet  it  is  so 
unlike  and  above  everything  we  conceive  of  in  this  world  that 
it  is  difficult  to  put  it  into  words.  The  inconceivable  loveliness 
of  Christ !  It  seems  that  about  Him  there  is  a  sphere  where  the 
enthusiasm  of  love  is  the  calm  habit  of  the  soul  and  that  without 
words,  without  the  necessity  of  demonstrations  of  affection,  heart 
beats  to  heart,  soul  answers  soul,  we  respond  to  the  Infinite 
Love  and  feel  his  answer  in  us.”35 

That  men  should  believe  in  a  Christ  who  is  to  come  again  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  arouses  many  Unitarians  to  a  fury 
bordering  on  hysteria.  The  Christian  Register  declares  it  “a 
doctrine  more  heinous  and  rotting  to  the  soul  than  polygamy, 
witch-burning  and  slavery  combined.”  It  calls  on  “the  capable 
men  in  the  tainted  churches  to  assail  this  thing  with  the  sublime 
wrath  of  Jesus,  to  utterly  destroy  it  by  the  flaming  truth  and 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schernes  81 


passion  of  pure  religion.”  Those  who  believe  in  it  are  a  religious 
Ku  Klux,  night  riders,  diabolical  persons.  Its  awfulness,  its 
bloody  sweep,  surpasses  the  most  gruesome  pictures  of  the  book 
of  Revelation.  At  the  Ford  Hall  forum,  so  it  tells  us,  after 
calling  on  the  Baptist  churches  to  head  off  the  impending 
Protestant  Inquisition  he  “aroused  his  very  large  audience  by 
his  appeal  to  the  churches  to  save  their  people  from  the  Second 
Coming  doctrine  of  force,  violence,  and  fanaticism.”  Mr. 
Weil,  another  Unitarian  minister,  calls  this  teaching  of  our 
Lord  “a  mediaeval  gospel  of  blood  and  the  devil,  a  hydra-headed 
monster  that  has  crawled  out  of  the  Dark  Ages.”  And  the 
Rev.  Maxwell  Savage  characterizes  it  as  “the  debauching  Sec¬ 
ond  Coming  enormity.”*36 

*  *  * 

In  1905  a  Unitarian  delegation  headed  by  President  Eliot 
went  from  Boston  to  the  initial  meeting  of  the  Federal  Council 

*A  chapter  might  be  written  on  the  religious  solecisms  of  Unitarian- 
ism,  its  irreverences  and  absurdities.  I  have  just  dipped  into  M.  J. 
Savage’s  Ministers’  Handbook.  In  his  service  for  the  burial  of  the 
dead  are  quotations  from  Socrates,  the  Buddhist  Scriptures,  Pythagoras, 
the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead.  Then  from  Cicero  (Roman),  Jesus 
Christ  (Israe^te)>  Plutarch  (Greek),  Thomas  Paine  (American), 
Benjamin  Franklin  (American)  and  J.  P.  Richter  (German). 

Or  think  of  the  sense  of  perspective  in  this  announcement:  “Dr. 
D.  will  preach  at  11  a.m.  Subject:  The  evolution  of  religious  con¬ 
ceptions  from  Abraham  to  Jesus  and  from  Jesus  to  Channing.” 

Or  of  the  historical  intelligence  of  this  statement  from  Dr.  Wendte: 
,rThe  whole  period  prior  to  the  Council  of  Nicea  may  be  regarded  as 
the  Unitarian  epoch  of  Christianity  during  which  the  predominant 
opinion,  however  highly  it  exalted  Christ,  stopped  short  of  the  ascription 
of  proper  deity  to  him.” — IV hat  Do  Unitarians  Believe?  25. 

Or  of  the  denominational  megalomania  which  in  the  official  story 
of  Jesus  for  Unitarian  Sunday-schools  compares  John  the  Baptist  with 
“Starr  King  who  saved  California  for  the  Union  and  whose  memorial 
window  is  in  Dr.  Hale’s  church”  and  which  enlarges  on  the  religious 
experiences  wrhich  turned  Robert  Collyer  from  the  anvil  to  the  [Unita¬ 
rian]  pulpit,  comparing  them  with  those  wffiich  turned  Jesus  from  a 
carpenter  into  a  messenger  of  God’s  truth.  In  these  comparisons  Jesus 
is  also  placed  alongside  of  “Schlatter,  the  Denver  healer”  with  no  sense 
of  incongruity. — Rev.  Florence  Buck,  The  Story  of  Jesus,  11  and  26. 
“At  dinner  at  Eliza  Cabot’s,”  says  another  Unitarian,  “the  resemblance 
of  Dr.  Channing  in  countenance  to  Jesus  Christ  was  a  topic  of  dis¬ 
course.”  (E.  P.  Peabody,  Reminiscences  of  W.  E.  Channing,  118.)  Even 
one  with  the  antecedents  of  Dr.  C.  E.  Park  can  speak  of  “the  Unitarian 
stone  which  the  builders  rejected  becoming  the  headstone  of  the  corner.” 
C.R.  1914:157. 


82 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  Churches  at  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York,  to  ask  for  the  seating 
of  Unitarian  representatives.  No  constituent  church  of  the 
Council  would  admit  President  Eliot  to  its  membership  nor 
would  he  wish  to  join  any  of  them.  Further,  no  man  in  the 
country  has  spoken  more  injuriously  than  he  of  the  teachings 
which  the  churches  cherish.  The  Council  refused  the  appli¬ 
cation.* 

“Unitarians  are  on  all  the  important  committees  of  the 
Massachusetts  Federation  of  Churches,”  wrote  the  President 
of  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot,  some 
years  ago.  For  sixteen  years  he  himself  has  been  on  its  execu¬ 
tive  committee.  At  the  present  time  Samuel  A.  Eliot  is  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Massachusetts  Federation  and  C.  W.  Eliot  [a  free¬ 
thinker  if  there  ever  was  one]  is  Honorary  Vice  President. 

Yet  they  are  not  satisfied  with  local  influence.  “Liberals,” 
says  the  Christian  Register  speaking  of  crypto-Unitarians  in  the 
churches,  “ought  to  realize  that  this  [attempt  to  get  into  the 
Federal  Council]  is  their  fight  and  that  the  sooner  they  get  into 
it  the  better.  A  certain  measure  of  self-respect  hampers  Uni¬ 
tarians.  They  have  been  kicked  out  of  the  front  door  .  .  . 
and  do  not  like  to  ply  the  knocker  very  vigorously  in  an  endeavor 
to  get  back.  But  there  are  others  inside  who  would  do  well  to 
see  to  it  that  Unitarians  do  get  back.  Otherwise  their  time  for 
ejectment  will  pretty  surely  come.”37 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  presence  of  Unitarian 
churches  in  the  Massachusetts  Federation  has  been  a  factor  in 
alienating  important  church  groups  from  the  Federal  Council. 
Evangelism  will  ever  be  looked  on  as  the  church’s  chief  mission 
and  this  is  rendered  nugatory  by  their  presence  in  the  Federa¬ 
tion.  When  Dr.  Goodell  of  the  Federal  Council’s  Department 
on  Evangelism  addressed  three  hundred  ministers  in  Boston  in 
1921  the  watchful  Unitarian  editor  immediately  stigmatized 
his  address  as  “a  reversion  to  type  in  evangelical  Protestantism.” 

*It  would  not  be  possible  to  admit  Unitarians  to  the  Federal  Council 
under  the  present  constitution,  the  preamble  of  which  reads,  “Whereas 
in  the  providence  of  God  the  essential  oneness  of  the  Christian  churches 
in  America  in  Jesus  Christ  as  their  divine  Lord  and  Saviour.  .  .  .” 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  83 

“Is  it  possible  today  in  an  assembly  of  ministers  of  all  denomi¬ 
nations  that  the  prevailing  note  should  be  that  mankind  is  under 
condemnation  for  sins  and  must  be  washed  in  the  blood  that 
flowed  from  Calvary?  If  this  is  allowed  to  prevail  liberalism 
will  have  to  re-enter  the  lists .”38 

The  Greater  Boston  Federation  of  Churches  by  article  3  of 
its  constitution  at  first  gave  to  churches  and  religious  and  civic 
organizations  “desiring  to  be  associated  with  the  Federation 
without  necessarily  endorsing  the  Christian  basis”  associate 
membership  without  votes.  In  1924  this  limitation  was  broken 
down  and  church,  synagogue,  and  neutral  charity  were  given 
full  voting  rights.  In  other  words  the  specifically  Christian 
character  of  the  Federation  is  abandoned.  So  we  have  Keith 
Theatre  services  with  Unitarian  speakers  under  Federation  aus¬ 
pices  and  “Institutes  for  parish  evangelism”  for  assorted  groups 
— Congregational-Unitarian,  Episcopalian-Greek-Lutheran,  etc. 
“No  committee,”  says  the  Massachusetts  Federation’s  organ  “is 
more  enthusiastic  and  united  [than  the  evangelistic  one]  though 
including  representatives  of  all  the  denominations  from  Adven¬ 
tist  to  Unitarian.  .  .  .  Our  very  denominational  differences 
thus  help  in  finding  ‘all  means  to  save  some.’  ”39 

But  would  one  not  find  it  difficult  to  listen  in  on  union  evan¬ 
gelistic  services  to  that  leading  Unitarian  official  who,  reporting 
the  Northern  Baptist  Convention  of  1922,  wrote:  “The  most 
objectionable  feature  of  the  convention  was  the  obnoxious  exag¬ 
geration  of  the  uplifted  Christ,  the  abnormal  emphasis  on  the 
place  of  the  cross  in  the  religious  life,  the  monotonous  regularity 
with  which  the  musical  director  selected  Christological 
songs.”* 

The  Federation,  however,  if  it  is  paralyzed  for  genuine  evan¬ 
gelism  by  the  Unitarian  intrusion,  can  at  least  give  religious 

*Dr.  Dieffenbach,  official  editor  of  Unitarianism,  preaches  at  times 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Greater  Boston  Federation  Sunday  Evenings 
at  Medford  Hillside  Radio  Station.  He  speaks  as  follows  of  the  radio 
utterances  of  Dr.  Massee  of  Tremont  Temple,  Boston  (C.R.  1923:1131)  : 

“What  awful  stuff  I  And  the  great  radio  station  of  one  of  the  stores 
in  Boston  is  a  broad-casting  accomplice  in  this  wretched  business.  Into 
thousands  of  homes  the  evil  things  about  a  fiendish,  murderous  God 


84 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


plays  with  Unitarian  and  other  ministers  as  actors  whose  set¬ 
ting  Prof.  Bade  approves  of  as  “keeping  close  to  the  historical 
situation  as  revealed  by  modern  scholarship.”  And  with  its 
“citizenship  honor  roll”  it  can  “help  to  get  out  the  vote.”40 

The  Unitarians  have  their  own  National  Federation  in  which 
they  are  banded  with  Reform  Jews,  Universalists,  Hicksite 
Quakers  and  whatever  else  is  alien  to  evangelical  Christianity. 
Strange  that  they  should  so  strenuously  seek  to  break  into  the 
Federal  Council  in  whose  constituency  they  are  so  unwelcome. 
But  recognition  by  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  would  pave 
the  way  for  admission  to  the  administration  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
and  Y.  W.  C.  A.  and  Unitarians  have  sought  for  this  even 
more  insistently.*  In  this  way  they  secured  entrance  into  the 
Interchurch  Movement  in  Massachusetts.41  I  suppose  that  it 
also  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  Massachusetts  S.  S.  Ass’n 
has  voted  to  admit  Unitarian  schools  under  conditions42  and  that 
the  report  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association  for  1918  con¬ 
gratulates  its  constituency  on  “the  admission  for  the  first  time  of 
a  Unitarian  delegate  to  the  meeting  of  the  International  S.  S. 
Association.”43 

The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  was  first  organized 
in  Boston  in  1851.  Memories  of  the  Unitarian  defection  were 
still  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  founders  and  their  plan  of  organi¬ 
zation  was  unquestionably  determined  thereby.  In  order  to 
forestall  diversion  of  their  gifts  they  confined  the  administration 
of  the  institution  they  were  establishing  to  men  of  the  evangelical 
point  of  view,  and  provided  in  case  this  stipulation  should  be 
disregarded  that  Association  property  should  go  to  the  American 

are  poured  in  the  name  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  It  is  terrible.  We 
should  as  lief  hear  a  minister  advise  a  maiden  to  yield  her  chastity,  a 
youth  to  steal  a  purse,  as  to  have  people  taught  as  they  are  taught  by 
Dr.  Massee.” 

*Mrs.  W.  H.  Robey,  speaking  for  a  modification  of  the  Y.  W.  C.  A. 
test  at  the  1924  convention  put  her  finger  on  this  point:  “We  face  a 
situation  anomalous,  divisive,  and  to  many  seemingly  unjust.  The 
Y.  W.  C.  A.’s  are  placed  in  the  position  of  debarring  as  electors  many 
who  are  taken  into  full  fellowship  by  their  local  federation  of  churches.” 
— Y.  JV.  C.  A.  report,  1924,  73. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  85 


Bible  Society.  An  inactive  mortgage  of  $600,000  on  the  Hunt¬ 
ington  Avenue  property,  I  am  told,  passes  to  that  society  in  case 
of  the  abandonment  of  the  evangelical  basis.* 

Mr.  Russell  Sturgis  was  active  in  securing  this  precaution. 
Mr.  James  Stokes  of  New  York,  one  of  the  most  generous  Asso¬ 
ciation  patrons,  sought  to  protect  his  gifts  “from  insidious  Uni¬ 
tarian  views”  by  the  creation  of  a  trust  to  which  his  residuary 
estate  was  to  go.  The  income  was  designated  for  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
pensions,  support  of  training  schools  [that  at  Springfield  ex¬ 
cepted]  and  the  like,  so  long  as  the  Association  stood  on  its 
historic  basis.  The  will  closes, 

“I  desire  that  the  work  for  which  the  fund  is  hereby  created 
shall  be  consecrated  and  used  to  and  for  the  furtherance  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  complete  atonement  for  sin  through  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  once  offered  and  that  secretaries  and 
teachers  may  be  selected  who  are  sound  in  the  faith,  believing 
in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  deity  of 
Christ.” 

Writing  to  Mr.  Weidensall  Mr.  Stokes  spoke  of  the  “destruc¬ 
tion  with  which  work  of  this  kind  is  threatened  when  it  becomes 
successful,  rich,  and  prosperous;”  and  to  Jim  Berwick,  freight 
conductor  and  evangelist,  “As  I  grow  older  I  appreciate  the 
great  foundation  on  which  our  Association  is  built,  namely 
belief  in  the  essential  truths  of  the  Bible  and  in  the  scheme  of 
salvation  which  means  sin,  salvation  and  a  Saviour.  Some  smart 
young  fellows  and  others  have  decided  that  the  Bible  is  not 
quite  what  it  ought  to  be  and  they  spend  more  time  in  finding 
out  what  it  is  not  than  what  it  is.  I  do  not  believe  they  can 
injure  the  Bible  by  any  of  their  foolish  talk  and  action.  But 
it  has  injured  a  great  many  young  men  and  it  has  crept  into 
our  Associations  in  some  places  and  into  one  or  more  of  our 

*So  determined  were  these  Boston  Y.  M.  C.  A.  founders  to  keep  out 
Unitarians  from  their  directorate  that  they  adopted  the  following  by¬ 
law:  “Any  member  of  the  board  changing  his  denominational  connec¬ 
tion  shall  be  deemed  to  have  resigned  and  the  vacancy  so  created  shall 
be  filled  as  hereafter  provided.” 


86 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


schools.*  I  take  ground  that  if  there  is  no  sin  then  there  is 
no  need  of  salvation  or  Saviour  and  what  is  the  use  of  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  anyhow  in  that  case.  There  lies  the  foundation 
of  all  our  work  and  all  my  work.  May  God  bless  and  keep 
you  in  it.”44 

The  year  after  the  founding  of  the  Boston  Association,  Uni¬ 
tarians  organized  a  club  for  men  on  similar  lines  under  the  name 
of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Union,  membership  in  which  was 
[and  is]  by  article  2  of  its  constitution  open  to  ‘‘all  young  men 
of  good  moral  character  and  claiming  to  believe  in  the  truths 
of  Christianity  The  Union  had  the  backing  of  Boston  society. 
On  its  roster  of  life  members  are  the  names  of  Alexander 
Agassiz,  C.  F.  Adams,  Oakes  Ames,  Oliver  Ames,  the  Crockers, 
Beebes,  Dexters,  Hunnewells,  Thayers,  Kidders,  Minots, 

*The  Association  College  in  Chicago  is  in  close  relation  to  the 
University  of  Chicago.  Young  secretaries  take  courses  under  Profs. 
Mathews,  Soares,  and  Artman,  and  among  the  occasional  lecturers  one 
notes  G.  B.  Smith,  E.  S.  Ames,  and  Clarence  Darrow,  atheist  and 
attorney  for  the  University  of  Chicago  degenerates,  Loeb  and  Leopold. 
Arrangements  have  been  made  by  which  the  University  of  Chicago 
correspondence-courses  may  be  taken  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  colleges.  These 
courses  are  in  Old  and  New  Testament,  Systematic  Theology,  Compara¬ 
tive  Religion,  etc.  Chicago  University  grants  degrees  jointly  with  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  College. — Association  College  Bulletin,  1923,  38. 

The  catalogues  of  these  Y.  M.  C.  A.  colleges  contain  interesting 
announcements.  The  college  at  Springfield  in  order  to  prepare  secre¬ 
taries  for  “Americanization  work”  offers  a  course  in  modern  European 
erotic  literature  with  readings  from  Flaubert,  Balzac,  de  Maupassant, 
A.  France,  Brieux,  Schnitzler,  Hamsum  and  Strindberg.  (Catalogue 
1922-23,  59.)  The  Southern  Y.  M.  C.  A.  college  gives  a  course  on 
religious  conversion,  religious  epidemics  and  the  crowd  mind,  divine 
healing  and  mysticism.  “The  student  will  be  referred  to  the  waitings 
of  James,  Starbuck,  Pratt,  Coe,  and  Stanley  Hall.”  A  course  on  the 
Social  Teachings  of  Jesus  “seeks  to  discover  the  social  emphasis  of 
Jesus  wThich,  with  the  new  scientific  and  social  knowledge,  may  help 
toward  an  understanding  of  the  spirit  and  method  of  life  as  reinterpret¬ 
ing  the  new  facts  of  religious  and  social  needs  of  our  own  time.” — 
Catalogue  1924-25,  46. 

Of  a  course  in  genetic  psychology  announced  at  Springfield  it  is 
discreetly  said:  “The  evolution  of  the  human  soul  in  its  complex  en¬ 
vironment  furnishes  examples  of  a  serious  nature  when  accurately 
observed  and  understood.”  Religious  instruction  is  here  “based  on  a 
study  of  biology,  psychology  and  sociology.” 

“Perhaps,”  wrote  Mr.  Stokes  referring  to  these  schools,  “there  is 
some  need  for  men  who  are  founders  like  you  and  me  to  lift  up  our 
voices  and  cry  aloud ;  or  perhaps  you  might  be  right  in  saying  that 
we  can  only  cry  aloud  to  God  Almighty  for  his  salvation.” 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  87 


Peabodys,  Shaws,  Shattucks,  Sears,  Sturgises,  Bowditches, 
Wiggles  worths,  Thorndikes,  and  Welds. 

The  Union  has  had  an  honorable  and  uneventful  history.  It 
trudges  along  on  Boylston  Street  and  has  not  ventured  even  into 
other  New  England  cities.  The  Association  belts  the  globe. 
In  the  United  States  alone  it  numbers  900,000  members  and  is 
easily  the  greatest  men’s  organization  on  earth.  What  a  lump 
for  leavening! 

The  line  taken  is  “injustice  to  Unitarians.”*  The  great  body 
of  Roman  Catholics,  non-church  members  and  Jews  do  not  seem 
conscious  of  any  injustice.  Tens  of  thousands  of  them  enjoy 
the  privileges  of  membership  and  are  satisfied  with  the  con¬ 
summate  administration  provided.  From  one  quarter  alone 
comes  the  outcry  and  that  in  all  notes  and  tones — ridicule,  blus¬ 
ter,  and  threat.  “With  quiescence  and  acquiescence  on  the  part 
of  so  many  Unitarians  and  Universalists,”  writes  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Reccord  [Unit.],  “the  change  [in  the  constitution  of  the  Y.  M. 
C.  A.]  will  not  come  soon.  This  policy  is  not  only  dictated  by 

*R.  R.  McBurney  believed  that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
depended  on  the  retention  of  evangelical  control  and  Mr.  Richard  C. 
Morse  also.  “Early  in  the  seventies  there  was  a  good  deal  of  protest 
against  this  test,”  writes  Mr.  Morse.  “In  not  a  few  cities  attempt  was 
made  to  organize  and  carry  on  the  work  without  it.  But  experimenta¬ 
tion  by  local  associations  invariably  brought  the  Association  back  to 
the  evangelical  basis.  It  was  the  Associations  with  this  test  that  secured 
secretaries  and  buildings,  in  other  words,  the  men  and  money  necessary 
to  carry  on  the  work.  The  Associations  attempted  upon  other  tests 
failed  in  the  direction  of  both  men  and  money.” — Doggett,  Life  of 
R.  R.  McBurney,  186. 

So  Dr.  Charles  Cuthbert  Hall  thought  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  “is  primarily  owing  to  its  strong  and  clear  position  on 
evangelical  lines.” — McFarland,  Progress  of  Church  Federation,  240. 

Mr.  Justice  Taft  has  a  larger  vision  than  the  “leaveners.”  He  de¬ 
scribes  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  as  one  of  the  greatest  agencies  for  helping 
young  men.  “In  those  to  whom  it  offers  its  encouraging  facilities  it 
makes  no  distinction  of  creed  or  religion.  It  is  non-denominational 
except  that  by  one  of  the  rules  of  its  original  organization  its  directors 
must  be  members  of  an  orthodox  Protestant  evangelical  church.  This 
has  been  made  the  basis  for  severe  criticism  of  its  narrowness.  I  cannot 
share  this  view.  .  .  .  When  I  think  that  in  China  mandarins  who  are 
Confucianists  or  nothing  contribute  generously  to  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  estab¬ 
lishments  because  of  the  good  it  does  in  the  large  cities  of  the  far 
Orient  I  don’t  think  it  is  for  a  Unitarian  to  withhold  his  aid  and 
encouragement  merely  because  he  is  not  eligible  to  its  directing  manage¬ 
ment.” — The  Religious  Convictions  of  an  American  Citizen. 


88 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


laymen  who  are  as  devoid  of  theological  training  as  they  are 
instinct  with  theological  prejudice.  When  patients  determine 
the  policy  of  physicians  and  clients  dictate  the  methods  of  law¬ 
yers  then  it  will  be  time  for  laymen  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
churches  and  ministers  alike  and  dictate  the  theology  of  the 
American  people.”*45 

“If  the  officials  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  find  that  Unitarians  are 
'easy/  ”  scolds  another,  “and  will  make  no  protest  against  being 
pilloried  as  non-Christians  and  will  still  give  money  to  support 
the  organization  which  casts  aspersion  upon  them,  then  those 
officials  will  make  but  little  effort  to  remedy  the  injustice  and 
bigotry.  .  .  .  But  if  boards  and  central  boards  see  that  offering 
to  Unitarians  the  use  of  libraries,  gymnasiums,  etc.,  is  not 
enough  and  that  Unitarians  stand  resolutely  and  self-respect- 
ingly  for  equality  of  Christian  character  in  full  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
fellowship,  then  they  will  have  their  better  natures  quickened 
and  will  make  greater  haste  to  extend  full  Christian  fellowship 
to  those  whose  money  they  so  steadily  and  persistently  seek.”48 

Another  complainant  speaks  of  “voluntary  taxation  without 
*  representation.”!  It  would  seem  as  if  the  best  way  to  rectify 
this  “voluntary”  injustice  would  be  to  have  done  with  “volun¬ 
tary”  giving  to  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  therewith  with  the 
attendant  clamor.  But  would  this  fit  in  with  the  Unitarian 
plan  of  campaign?  This  insistent  attempt  to  break  down  the 
constitution  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  is  accented  by  an  occasional 
gift  to  the  Association’s  great  work  for  the  education  and  help 

*Mr.  Reccord  lets  out  another  dreadful  secret.  “It  may  not  be  gen¬ 
erally  known  that  the  officers  of  the  National  Association  have  not  only 
dictated  its  policy  for  nearly  fifty  years  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
leading  New  England  Associations  and  many  outside  New  England 
are  opposed  to  it  but  they  are  trying  to  reach  out  and  control  the  teach¬ 
ing  in  the  schools  in  which  Association  secretaries  and  physical  directors 
receive  their  training.”  C.R.  1913:608. 

+Rev.  John  Snyder:  “When  we  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  private 
judgment  reach  different  theological  conclusions  you  shut  us  out  of  full 
citizenship  in  that  Kingdom  of  God  which  in  our  humble  fashion  we 
are  helping  you  to  create.  Many  of  us  are  voluntarily  taxed  without 
representation.”  C.R.  1912:392. 

There  is  a  suggestion  of  persecution  complex  in  these  complaints 
against  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  That  this  is  a  possible  trait  among  Unitarians 
is  suggested  by  an  article  by  the  Rev.  J.  T.  Sunderland,  who  complained 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  89 

of  the  general  public.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  am  told  by  the 
best  informed  Y.  M.  C.  A.  official  in  Massachusetts  that  Uni¬ 
tarian  laymen  regard  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  membership  test  as  a 
heaven-sent  protection  against  solicitation  of  subscriptions. 

One  hundred  and  fifty  millions  have  been  invested  in  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  on  the  strength  of  its  evangelical  management. 
During  the  war  Unitarians  in  the  fire  and  fervor  of  the  time 
contributed  $75,000  for  Y.  M.  C.  A.  war-work  in  France. 
A  number  of  Unitarian  ministers  were  sent  abroad  under  the 
Red  Triangle.  The  camel’s  nose  was  at  last  in  the  tent  and 
the  president  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association  now  felt 
enough  at  home  to  pass  judgment  on  the  Association’s  religious 
life.  The  Y.  M.  C.  A.  hymn-book  he  told  the  public,  was  “a 
compilation  of  musical  slang  and  literary  trash.  Chaplains  and 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  secretaries,  who  have  some  real  religious  sensibility 
or  a  fair  share  of  good  taste,  welcome  our  [Unitarian]  hymn 
pamphlets.”  “Ministers  who  persuade  the  boys  to  come  to 
Jesus  and  save  their  souls  are  religious  demagogues”  and  their 
preaching  “immoral  nonsense.”47  [Eliot  fils  is  indeed  the 
spiritual  son  of  Eliot  pere.~\  Dr.  John  W.  Day  complained  of 
the  shock  which  he  felt  when  Christian  clergymen  at  Camp 
Zachary  Taylor  actually  prayed  to  Christ.  It  was  “a  kind  of 
blasphemy.” 48  I  will  not  quote  Dr.  Dieffenbach  on  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
religion.  It  is  unquotable.  It  ends  with  “I  give  this  parting 
thrust  to  a  fleeting  shame  [Y.  M.  C.  A.  evangelical  teach- 

after  visiting  various  evangelical  churches  that  his  ears  were  offended 
by  mention  of  the  Trinity.  “Six  different  times  the  Trinity  idea  was 
thrust  upon  us.  .  .  .  Into  the  service  were  brought  still  other  things  not 
in  harmony  with  the  faith  of  Unitarians,  as  prayer  to  Christ  as  God, 
frequent  use  of  such  expressions  as  ‘our  Lord’  applied  to  Jesus  or  ‘our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ/  petitions  for  mercy  or  for  salvation  ‘for  Christ’s 
sake.’  This  actually  happened  in  a  large  Congregational  church  reputed 
to  be  particularly  liberal!  If  a  guest  comes  into  our  home  we  do  not 
show  our  welcome  by  saying  to  him  at  once  things  which  we  know  will 
grate  on  his  feelings,  things  concerning  which  we  know  he  holds  rad¬ 
ically  different  views  from  our  own.  But  this  is  just  what  a  Unitarian 
attending  an  orthodox  church  usually  finds  himself  confronted  with.” 
Mr.  Sunderland  contrasts  with  this  the  breadth  and  courtesy  of  Unita¬ 
rians.  C.R.  1912:1117. 

One  can  imagine  from  this  what  would  befall  evangelical  religion 
if  “liberals”  had  their  way  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 


90 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


ing].  It  will  soon  be  gone.  We  are  coming  into  new  days. 
The  last  days  of  evangelical  test  in  the  fY'  are  with  us.  ...  I 
have  spoken  to  men  who  have  made  and  are  now  making  the 
Association  s  history.  They  know /M9 

That  there  are  men  in  the  Association  who  would  betray 
the  donors  of  the  past  is  probably  true.  There  were  those  in 
the  Congregational  churches  who  sold  out  the  founders  of 
Andover.  President  Doggett  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  College  at 
Springfield  talks  of  “the  dead  hand”  and  “dogmatic  shackles” 
in  the  approved  fashion  of  the  Andover  endowment  raiders.50 
The  student  associations  are  the  point  of  primary  attack.  In 
the  University  of  Michigan  the  ruse  used  was  to  revive  a  de¬ 
funct  organization,  “the  Students’  Christian  Association,”  admit 
Unitarians  and  then  merge  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  Y.  W.  C.  A. 
with  it.*  In  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  Protestants,  Catholics, 
Buddhists,  and  non-church  members  are  admitted  on  the  same 
basis.51 

The  Y.  W.  C.  A.  is  also  kept  in  a  state  of  intermittent 
fever  by  the  efforts  to  alter  the  basis  of  active  membership. 
In  reading  the  reports  of  the  last  three  national  conventions  one 
is  conscious  of  the  real  meaning  of  this  agitation.  Mrs.  Dwight 
Morrow,  for  example,  in  supporting  modification  used  this 
conclusive  argument: 

“Having  been  brought  up  to  believe  that  Presbyterians  get 
the  highest  seats  in  heaven  I  have  been  obliged  to  sit  at  the 
feet  of  some  Unitarians  whose  boots  I  am  not  worthy  to  black.” 

Miss  Shanks  made  this  statement:  “I  want  to  quote  what 
was  said  in  my  presence  a  few  months  ago  by  one  of  our 
leaders.  A  person  of  prominence  in  one  of  our  large  institutions 

*This  would  presumably  leave  the  Association  open  to  the  influence 
of  professors  in  the  Unitarian  church  at  Ann  Arbor,  Prof.  H.  F.  Good¬ 
rich  for  example,  President  of  the  Western  Unitarian  Conference,  who 
I  judge  referred  to  his  own  opinions  in  describing  the  modern  layman 
as  “one  who  has  left  the  past  entirely  behind,  who  had  no  very  clearly 
defined  religion  of  life,  who  is  none  too  sure  of  the  existence  of  God” 
(C.R.  1922:1102)  ;  or  of  Prof.  Roy  B.  Sellars,  a  quondam  student  at 
Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  now  atheist  philosopher  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Michigan,  who  speaks  of  Paul’s  god  as  a  cad. — The  Next 
Step  in  Religion,  181. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  91 

in  the  Middle  West,  a  Unitarian ,  said  to  him ,  ' Ten  years  ago 
we  set  out  to  capture  the  large  universities  of  the  land  and  we 
have  practically  done  it  and  now  we  are  setting  about  to  capture 
the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  the  Y.  W,  C.  A!  " 

Mrs.  Gladding:  “The  student  test  for  voting  and  therefore 
controlling  membership  proposes  a  statement  of  good  intention 
capable  of  several  interpretations.  When  a  girl  says,  ‘It  is  my 
purpose,  etc.,’  it  does  not  follow  that  she  acknowledges  Jesus 
Christ  as  her  God  and  Saviour.  Only  last  Sunday  in  New  York 
a  well-known  Unitarian  clergyman  arraigned  the  Inter-church 
Movement  for  not  admitting  Unitarians.  ‘We  too  believe  in 
and  follow  Christ/  he  said,  ‘but  we  do  not  require  belief  in 
the  deity  of  Jesus/  If  a  Unitarian  clergyman  believes  and 
follows  Jesus  why  may  not  Unitarian  girls  not  conscientiously 
take  the  student  declaration?” 

Mrs.  J.  E.  Marshall:  “Can  you  imagine  yourself  sitting 
with  a  board  of  directors  planning  a  distinctly  Christian  pro¬ 
gram  with  those  who  deny  Christ's  divinity  f  We  dare  not 
expect  God’s  blessing.  A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole 
lump.  If  this  is  a  Christian  Association  it  must  be  funda¬ 
mentally  for  Christ.” 

Mrs.  H.  C.  Swearingen:  “It  will  be  impossible  to  put  over 
this  religious  program  [for  girls]  with  people  who  differ  from 
us  or  even  if  they  are  indifferent,”  adding,  with  a  homely  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  servant-girl  whose  Catholic  presence  suddenly 
checks  Protestant  conversation  at  the  dining  table:  “Some  such 
conditions  I  fear  will  prevail,  especially  in  our  board  meetings. 
Our  womanhood  and  our  self-respect  will  not  allow  us  to 
speak  against  those  who  are  working  with  us.  .  .  .  The  thing 
that  I  fear  is  that  we  are  bringing  amongst  us  discord  or  else 
apathy.” 

Finally  one  blunt  delegate  remarked :  “I  love  to  think  of  the 
church  as  being  a  home.  We  have  windows  and  doors  in  our 
houses  to  let  in  God’s  eternal  sunshine  and  ventilation  but  we 
have  screens  to  keep  out  dust  and  flies.  We  must  keep  out 
things  that  don’t  help  us.”52 


92 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


What  is  the  motive  back  of  this  continual  drive  to  get  into 
the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.,  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches,  and  other  organizations  of  American  Christianity? 
The  answer  is  fairly  given  by  a  Unitarian  editor: 

“Our  doctrines  are  especially  good  for  budding  and  grafting 
on  older  stock .  If  the  name  is  sometime  repellant  the  substance 
when  transplanted  and  allowed  to  spread  by  inoculation  has  a 
wonderful  power  of  expansion.  We  are  sometimes  astonished 
to  see  how  our  position  on  the  virgin  birth,  miracles,  etc.,  has 
been  incorporated  into  the  body  of  an  old  faith.  To  be  sure 
these  new  and  vigorous  branches  are  of  a  nature  to  render  the 
reinainder  of  the  tree  of  but  little  value.  .  .  .  We  should 
frankly  confess  that  our  unadulterated  doctrine,  the  honest 
truth  frankly  utteredj  does  not  appeal  to  the  masses  but  when 
a  strong  flavor  of  it  appears  in  an  old  stock  it  is  often  welcomed 
with  enthusiasm.  Then  it  appears  under  the  enticing  name  of 
liberalism. 

“The  Unitarian  body  is  constantly  grafting  new  thought, 
purpose,  and  method  on  the  older  churches.  ...  By  indirection 
a  large  part  of  the  finest  and  subtlest  work  is  accomplished . 
.  .  .  The  purpose  of  its  very  existence  is  to  widen  the  area  of 
liberal  thought  by  a  movement  without  which  the  old  churches 
might  have  fossilized.  ...  No  great  landslide  from  the  old 
ranks  as  was  once  predicted  has  taken  place,  but  it  is  one  thing 
to  tear  down  a  structure  with  tremendous  noise  and  dust  and 
another  to  transform  it  vitally  or  to  assist  the  spirit  of  the  age 
in  this  great  work.”53 

In  this  work  of  transforming  Christian  churches  and  insti¬ 
tutions,  Unitarians  are  depending  on  the  co-operation  of  crypto- 
Unitarians  in  evangelical  churches.  “A  good  many  Unitarians/' 
says  Dr.  J.  W.  Day,  a  leading  Unitarian  minister,  “are  doing 
more  good  where  they  are  than  they  could  do  anywhere  else. 
They  are  undoubtedly  capturing  strongholds  that  we  could 
never  carry  by  direct  attack.  They  are  the  modernists  of  Prot¬ 
estantism  who  are  working  from  within  the  fold.  .  .  .  We  want 
more  of  them  and  we  want  them  where  they  are .”54 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  93 

So  effective  is  this  co-operation  in  Unitarian  eyes  that  the 
editor  of  the  Christian  Register  feels  justified  in  speaking  of  the 
fight  against  evangelical  Christianity  as  already  won  though 
many  do  not  realize  it.  “Every  little  while  we  read  of  some 
belated  inhabitant  of  a  remote  locality  who  does  not  yet  know 
how  the  Civil  War  turned  out.”55 

These  intriguers  do  not  want  a  too  speedy  withdrawal  of 
the  neo-Unitarians  from  the  Christian  churches.  They  are  not 
interested  in  unendowed  theological  wraiths  like  Dr.  Crapsey.* 
Any  such  abandonment  of  present  associations,  “not  to  speak 
of  invested  interests ”  writes  Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody,  “would 
demand  a  sacrificial  heroism  which  might  seem  ill-advised  or 
premature Far  better  is  “a  gradual  process  of  spiritualiza¬ 
tion  ( !)  penetrating  the  existing  churches  as  spring  comes  in 
New  England.”56 

The  ultimate  hope  is  of  a  landslide  bringing  into  Uni- 
tarianism  modernist  ministers,  churches,  people,  endowments, 
institutions.  “A  hundred  years  ago,”  said  President  Eliot 
in  Ford  Hall  in  1920,  “the  Unitarian  denomination  took 
in  rather  suddenly  a  large  number  of  ministers  who  had  been 
up  to  that  time  connected  with  the  Congregational  church; 
but  there  was  a  phenomenon  then  which  does  not  recur  in  our 
time.  We  should  be  very  glad  to  have  it  recur.  There  was  a 
large  expansion  of  the  Unitarian  fellowship  in  those  days  be¬ 
cause  when  a  minister  came  over  from  another  denomination 
he  generally  brought  his  church  with  him  or  at  least  the  major 
part  of  it.  .  .  .  We  would  like  to  have  that  experience  repeated 

*“I  am  as  badly  off  as  a  nameless  man.  I  cannot  do  business  in  the 
religious  world.  Apparently  I  am  nothing  and  belong  nowhere.  One 
who  has  not  this  isolation  can  have  no  notion  of  what  it  means.” — 
Crapsey,  The  Last  of  the  Heretics,  292. 

Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody  congratulates  him  “on  the  privilege  which  is 
given  to  you  through  the  bearing  of  others’  burdens  to  fulfil  the  law 
of  Christ.”  Another  Harvard  Unitarian,  Col.  Higginson,  wrote  in 
similar  vein.  Dr.  Palmer,  the  editor  of  the  Harvard  Theological  Re¬ 
view,  wrote:  “One  may  almost  envy  you  the  opportunity  of  pouring 
out  blood  (!)  for  that”  [i.  e.,  the  hastening  of  the  time  when  similar 
Unitarian  views  will  be  held  in  the  church]. 

Crapsey  writes,  “Again  I  exhort  my  brethren  of  like  belief  to  stay 
where  they  are.”  280. 


94 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


in  our  generation.  It  would  be  an  admirable  mode  of  recruiting 
the  Unitarian  fellow  ship.”  *57 

Base  as  all  this  seems  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  present 
program  of  Unitarianism.  Let  me  add  more  evidence. 

“Liberals,  unhatched  Unitarians,  are  in  all  the  churches,” 
says  the  Rev.  Minot  Simons.  “Some  way  must  be  found  to 
bring  them  together  and  to  organize  them  on  the  basis  of 
liberalism.  To  be  suspected  of  Unitarianism  would  discredit 
them  with  their  associates.  .  .  .  If  we  believe  that  we  are  the 
leaven  then  we  must  get  busy  on  the  whole  lump.  .  .  .  Let  us 
subordinate  every  other  interest  to  this." f58 

“Oh,  that  I  might  see  the  leaven  working  more  rapidly,” 
sighs  one  correspondent  in  the  Christian  Register ,*59  and  on  the 
next  page  a  Unitarian  “missionary”  visiting  “hide-bound  Nash¬ 
ville”  explains  why  his  advertisements  were  headed  “Truth, 
Worship,  Service”  [rather  than  a  frank  Unitarian  announce¬ 
ment]. 

“To  have  led  a  direct  assault  upon  those  orthodox  fortifica¬ 
tions  would  have  aroused  unnecessary  antagonism  at  the  start 
and  shut  the  doors  of  the  city  in  our  faces.  I  certainly  should 
not  have  had  three  invitations  to  address  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  at 
Vanderbilt  University  and  a  local  Methodist  church  which 

*For  a  century  there  have  been  next  to  no  accessions  to  American 
Unitarianism.  They  are,  therefore,  watching  the  disturbances  in  the 
churches  with  the  sharpest  of  appetites.  The  Christian  Register  (24: 
282)  has  its  eye  on  the  Old  First  Presbyterian  Church  on  Lower  Fifth 
Avenue.  Will  it  withdraw  from  Presbyterianism  and  become  an  inde¬ 
pendent  church?  “Such  a  step  would  without  doubt  make  a  great  up¬ 
heaval  throughout  Presbyterianism.  There  are  literally  hundreds  of 
liberal  Presbyterian  ministers  who  with  their  congregations  would  need 
only  some  such  heroic  example  as  the  historic  First  Church  to  cause 
them  to  follow  the  lead.  What  an  exodus  to  liberalism  there  might  be!” 
And  among  the  Methodists  too! 

It  adds  that  the  legal  provisions  protecting  the  church  property 
“might  stop  the  whole  movement.”  The  glorious  army  of  liberal  mar¬ 
tyrs !  But  cases  have  been  known  where  legal  stipulations  have  been 
successfully  evaded  by  liberal  theologians. 

fFew  people  read  Unitarian  literature.  If  they  should  they  would 
be  struck  with  the  constant  reiteration  of  this  figure  of  speech:  “What 
could  Unitarianism  hope  to  achieve?”  asks  Dr.  E.  A.  Horton,  “To  per¬ 
meate  other  churches  with  liberal  tendencies  ...  to  leaven  the  lump 
of  modern  Christianity.”  Dr.  Putnam  is  then  quoted  as  saying, 


Unitarian  Skepticism  arid  Unitarian  Schemes  95 


furnished  the  entering  wedge.”  Then  he  adds:  “Suggestion 
is  admissible,  letting  the  truth  slip  into  the  back  door  of  the 
mind  unawares  when  the  front  entrance  has  been  barri¬ 
caded.”60 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Crothers  of  Cambridge  uses  another  figure 
but  the  meaning  is  the  same.  It  is  a  frank  confession  of  prose- 
lytism.  “Our  task  is  very  largely  a  task  of  transplanting  the 
religion  which  has  grown  up  on  traditionalism,  transplanting 
it  into  the  new  soil  .  .  .  prepared  for  it  by  true  thinking.”61 

“The  name  ‘Unitarian*  I  care  little  for  in  itself, ”  says  the 
Rev.  F.  A.  Farley,  “and  while  I  see  the  thing  which  it  denotes 
doing  its  work  and  leavening  the  mass  I  am  content.”62 

Dr.  Slaten  of  the  West  Side  Unitarian  Church,  New  York, 
explains  the  method.  He  had  been  a  Baptist  minister  for 
twenty-one  years  but  during  the  last  ten  of  them  accepted  the 
Unitarian  position  [i.  e.  without  avowing  it].  During  this 
period  he  was  the  Baptist  pastor  at  the  University  of  Michigan, 
professor  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  College  in  Chicago,  and  Bible 
instructor  in  William  Jewell  College.  His  Unitarianism  be¬ 
came  so  obvious  that  the  trustees  of  the  latter  institution  re¬ 
quested  his  resignation.  Whereat  pandemonium  in  the  press 
of  the  country.  The  Inquisition  was  again  at  work;  Slaten  a 
martyr  in  shirt  of  flame.  What  he  says  of  his  tactics  is  this: 
“In  some  of  the  churches  at  least ,  the  very  principle  of  freedom 
on  which  the  denomination  is  based  guarantees  him  [the  crypto- 
Unitarian]  his  right  to  remain.  It  is  strategic  to  remain  and 
work  from  the  inside.  Many  others  are  doing  it  successfully 
and  the  gradual  permeation  of  the  orthodox  denominations  with 

“Unitarianism  considered  as  a  lump  is  very  small  but  considered  as  a 
leaven  it  is  vast  and  omnipresent.  As  an  organism  it  is  feeble;  as  an 
influence  it  is  irresistible.” 

“I  find  in  this  fact,”  continues  Horton,  “that  we  are  leaven  and 
not  the  lump,  nothing  that  should  exalt  or  depress  us.  ...  I  do  not 
see  why  other  churches  should  exhibit  feeling  if  we  claim  this  position 
and  this  work.  They  have  other  and  more  tangible  trophies;  we  are 
virtually  contributing  to  their  greatness  and  power.  By  our  sacrifices 
they  are  fed.  In  our  poverty  is  their  richness.  We  cut  a  path:  they 
walk  in  it.  We  inaugurate  a  philanthropy;  they  enjoy  it,”  etc. — 
Unitarianism ,  7,  8. 


96 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


liberal  ideas  disseminated  by  trusted  leaders  of  their  own  ap¬ 
pears  to  them  the  best  procedure .  Until  recently  this  has  been 
a  procedure  that  was  comparatively  easy  to  follow.  Now  it  is 
uncertain  and  dangerous ,"63 

Then  follow  the  reasons  why,  concluding  with  a  greeting 
from  the  secure  fold  of  Unitarianism,  “Brother  and  comrade, 
come  over.”* 

This  is  in  the  best  style  of  Canisius  and  the  Ingolstadt  Jesuits 
and  it  is  the  recognized  procedure  of  Unitarians,  their  his¬ 
torical  modus  operandi.  “The  formation  of  Unitarian  societies 
in  some  of  our  towns  and  villages  where  there  seemed  to  be 
an  opening  for  them  was  discountenanced,”  writes  the  Unita¬ 
rian  historian  of  the  early  days  in  New  England,  “on  the  ground 
that  it  was  better  for  ‘liberal  persons’  to  retain  their  connection 
with  the  orthodox  societies  with  the  expectation  of  gradually 
modifying  the  creed.”64 

In  No.  223  of  the  official  tracts  of  the  American  Unitarian 
Association,  the  Rev.  W.  S.  Morgan  describes  his  passage  to 
Unitarianism.  “A  liberal  brother  from  a  neighboring  town 
came  to  see  me.  He  had  said  some  radical  things  from  his 
pulpit  to  which  objections  had  been  made.  Don’t  label  your 
heresy,  was  my  advice.  Do  as  I  do.  Give  them  heresy  in  such 
a  fashion  that  the  very  saints  will  not  suspect  it.  Bad  ethics, 
you  say!  1  say,  very  bad!  But  this  is  the  only  way  in  which 
hundreds  of  orthodox  pulpits  can  be  held.  JVhen  it  was  whis- 

*Prof.  Slaten  in  a  sermon  in  the  West  Side  Unitarian  church,  N.  Y., 
made  this  aside:  “I  understand  a  representative  of  William  Jewell 
College  is  in  the  city  today  to  raise  $60,000.  I  hope  he  gets  it.  The 
conservatives  cannot  halt  the  march  of  progress  and  ultimately  that 
money  will  pay  those  who  teach  the  things  now  proscribed.”  C.R. 
1923:458. 

What  this  coming  religion  is  for  which  we  are  subscribing  money 
he  defines  as  follows  (N.  Y.  Times,  Nov.  9,  1925) :  “Where  the  aid 
religion  made  the  supreme  object  God  the  new  makes  it  humanity; 
where  the  old  controlled  conduct  by  the  assumed  favor  or  disfavor  of 
the  Deity  the  new  makes  the  effect  of  one’s  conduct  upon  social  well¬ 
being  the  controlling  consideration;  sociology  takes  place  of  theology 
and  the  world-hope  of  an  improved  social  order  replaces  the  belief  in 
a  blessed  immortality.  .  .  .  The  great  question  has  been,  ‘Where  will 
you  spend  eternity?’  The  great  question  now  is,  ‘Where  and  how  will 
you  spend  the  rest  of  your  life?” 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  97 

pered  abroad  that  in  my  ministry  of  three  years  I  had  not 
preached  a  sermon  on  the  blood  of  Jesus  cleansing  us  from  all 
sin  I  saw  clearly  that  I  was  discovered  ”  Mr.  Morgan  was  a 
Baptist  minister  educated  at  the  Yale  Divinity  School. 

In  the  same  official  tract  the  Rev.  Thomas  Clayton  tells  a 
similar  story.  When  he  became  a  Unitarian,  he  says,  " 1  was 
advised  to  stay  where  I  was  and  keep  some  of  my  opinions  to 
myself ,  gradually  to  sow  the  seeds  of  liberalism  and  wait  until 
the  time  was  ripe  for  more  aggressive  agitation  ”  This  it  will 
be  remembered  is  essentially  the  advice  of  Prof.  Peabody’s  Yale 
Review  article. 

Alexandre  Morel,  in  his  studies  of  butterfly  life,  tells  how 
he  searched  for  cocoons  of  a  magnificent  and  rare  butterfly  in 
the  Haut  Valais,  hoping  to  raise  some  of  the  purple  and  silver 
beauties.  He  finally  succeeded  in  finding  five  chrysalides  in 
perfect  health  on  a  certain  Alpine  plant  which  attracts  them. 
But  when  the  time  of  birth  came,  out  of  the  first  crawled  an 
ichneumon;  out  of  the  second  another;  out  of  the  third  still 
another.  Only  the  fifth  and  last  produced  a  butterfly. 

What  had  happened?  The  ichneumon  fly  had  deposited  its 
egg  in  each  of  the  living  caterpillars.  The  ichneumonized 
caterpillar  lived  as  if  nothing  had  happened, — ate,  grew,  con¬ 
structed  its  cocoon.  The  unfortunate  caterpillar  did  not  realize 
it  was  possessed,  that  under  its  skin  it  carried  a  perfidious  enemy, 
which  while  letting  it  live,  slowly  destroyed  it  or  rather  trans¬ 
formed  its  destiny  altogether.  In  fact  this  mysterious  substance 
which  should  have  given  birth  to  a  butterfly  passed  altogether 
into  the  body  of  the  little  larva  and  became  an  ichneumon. 

Dr.  Theodore  T.  Munger,  a  leader  of  Congregationalism  in 
the  last  generation,  wrote  of  Unitarianism,  “I  feel  more  than 
ever  the  terrible  lack  in  that  denomination.  There  is  a  great 
gulf  between  them  and  us.”65  But  thirty  years  of  “permeation” 
has  brought  a  distinct  change  in  the  situation.  A  prominent 
Congregationalist  with  Unitarian  sympathies,  Dr.  A.  W.  Ver¬ 
non,  said  ten  years  ago,  “I  hope  that  I  shall  live  to  see  the 
day  when  it  shall  be  as  hard  to  distinguish  our  two  branches 


98 


The  Leaven  of  the  S adduce es 


of  Congregationalism  from  each  other  as  it  is  to  tell  twin 
daughters  apart  who  have  forgotten  to  tie  up  their  braids  with 
a  blue  and  a  red  ribbon.  I  fear  that  our  extremists  will  dis¬ 
cover  that  in  spite  of  their  violent  efforts  to  divide  us  there 
is  one  who  is  our  Master  and  all  we  are  brethren.”66 

The  Old  South  church,  Boston,  now  admits  Unitarians  to 
membership  and  dismisses  its  members  to  Unitarian  churches.* 
Dr.  G.  A.  Gordon  appears  at  the  Theodore  Parker  centenary 
and  when  his  own  anniversary  comes  around  grateful  Unitarians 
of  the  Laymen’s  League  apply  to  him  the  salutation,  “Thou 
art  my  Beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.”  The  Con¬ 
gregational  and  Unitarian  clubs  hold  on  occasion  joint  dinners.! 
Both  denominations  have  summer  conferences  on  the  Isle  of 
Shoals!  and  Unitarians  have  had  book  counters  at  the  Con- 
gregationalist  bookstore.  Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot  records  Congregational 
and  Unitarian  churches  “worshipping  together”  at  Taunton, 
Uxbridge,  Peabody,  Berlin,  and  Pepperell.  The  Central 
Church,  Boston  [Congregational],  summers  with  the  First 
Church  [Unitarian]  ;  the  Plymouth  Church,  Brooklyn,  with 
neighboring  Unitarian  churches.  “In  Lowell  they  are  making 
history  these  days,”  writes  the  Christian  Register.  “The  High 
Street  Congregational  united  with  the  local  Unitarian  church 
to  form  All  Souls  church.”  The  fusion  church  directly  at- 

*Thus  fulfilling  the  ideal  of  the  Unitarian  J.  W.  Chadwick — a  grad¬ 
ual  disappearance  of  orthodoxy  in  all  denominations  “until  dividing 
lines  shall  offer  as  little  obstruction  to  .  .  .  going  back  and  forth  among 
them  as  the  equator  offers  to  the  cruiser’s  gliding  keel.” — Old  and  New 
Unitarian  Belief,  240. 

fForefathers’  Day,  Dec.  20,  1920,  Dr.  N.  Boynton  said  to  the  gathered 
Unitarians  and  Congregationalists,  “No  nobler  monument  could  be 
reared  to  commemorate  the  300th  anniversary  of  the  landing  of  the 
Pilgrims  than  the  closing  of  the  insignificant  and  principally  past  par¬ 
ticiple  differences  between  these  common  communions  and  the  shaking 
of  hands  together  and  the  recognizing  before  the  whole  great  world  of 
truth  that  these  two  fellowships,  once  together,  are  together  again  for  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  the  world,  saying  to  the  world, 
Sirs,  we  are  brethren.”  C.R.  1920:1266. 

!“Let  the  candle-light  procession  [a  Unitarian  function  on  the  Isle 
of  Shoals]  lengthen  until  it  unites  the  Unitarians  and  Congregationalists 
in  one  fellowship  of  light  and  be  a  sign  and  wonder  to  all  other  sects 
and  denominations.” — Dr.  Rihbany,  C.R.  1915:1211. 


Unitarian  Skepticism  and  Unitarian  Schemes  99 


tached  itself  to  the  Unitarian  Association  of  Middlesex  County. 
Again  it  records  with  satisfaction,  “For  the  first  time  in  their 
history  the  Congregational  and  Unitarian  conferences  of  Cape 
Cod  met  in  joint  session.”  The  Middlesex  Association  of  Con¬ 
gregational  ministers  has  held  a  joint  meeting  with  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  to  consider  closer  relations.  The  ministers  of  the  two 
denominations  in  Dedham  in  1923  issued  a  statement  declaring 
that  what  they  “held  in  common  was  greater  than  the  things 
we  hold  in  difference.  ...  We  are  not  representatives  of 
rival  enterprises  but  comrades  of  a  common  quest.”67 

What  these  rapprochements  mean  is  obvious  enough.  They 
represent  no  church  union  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Presbyterian 
churches  in  Scotland  united  in  1900.  They  are  a  flat  surrender 
of  the  faith  to  anti-Christianity.  Thus  when  a  union  of  this 
sort  was  arranged  in  the  country  town  of  Francestown,  N.  H., 
the  Unitarians  sent  thither  as  minister  Dr.  G.  W.  Cooke,  an 
outright  atheist.68  When  in  1917  the  shortage  of  coal  led  to 
“union  services”  in  some  fifty-four  places  in  New  England  the 
annual  report  of  the  Unitarian  Association  (1918)  admonished 
its  constituency  to  " beware  of  any  permanent  union  which  is 
based  on  compromise.  They  must  not  sacrifice  any  of  their 
hard-won  simplicity  of  faith.” 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  IV 

1.  C.R.  1911:298.  2.  Emerton,  Unitarian  Thought,  269,  254,  169,  165,  170, 

190,  191,  172,  42,  119.  3.  Chadwick’s  Old  and  New  Unitarian  Belief,  155, 

212,  160,  214,  190.  4.  Dole,  Catechism  of  Liberal  Faith,  39,  42,  44,  87,  82, 

110.  5.  Liberal  Christianity  in  the  U.  S.,  12.  6.  Eliot,  Religion  of  the  Future, 

23.  7.  A  Free  and  Open  Christian  Church,  3.  8.  J.  M.  Wilson,  From  Author¬ 
ity  to  Freedom  in  Religion,  7,  9.  9.  Rainsford,  The  Story  of  a  Varied  Life, 

458.  10.  Rihbany,  Jesus  and  His  Place  in  Christian  Thought,  12,  16,  18. 

11.  E.  E.  Hale,  The  Unitarians.  12.  C.R.  1914:417.  13.  Eliot,  Religion  of  the 

Future,  12,  14.  14.  Eliot,  Crying  Need  of  a  Renewed  Christianity,  14,  13,  12, 

15.  15.  Eliot,  Twentieth  Century  Christianity,  3,  4.  16.  Potter,  The  New 

Unitarian  Statement  of  Faith,  11.  17.  Casson,  Three  Great  Words  of  Modern 

Religion,  19.  18.  Savage,  The  Signs  of  the  Times,  109.  19.  C.R.  1920:945  and 

1921:8 27.  20.  C.R.  1921:751.  21.  C.R.  1921:825.  22.  C.R.  1921:1015  and 

1924:438.  23.  C.R.  1920:670.  24.  C.R.  1920:506,  603.  25.  C.R.  1921:899. 

26.  C.R.  1923:7.  27.  C.R.  1919:876.  28.  C.R.  1920:294.  29.  C.R.  1913:582. 

30.  C.R.  1914:20.  31.  C.R.  1913:307,  319.  32.  C.R.  1916:657.  33.  C.R. 

1922:976.  34.  C.R.  1921:1206.  35.  Sanborn,  Life  of  S.  G.  Howe,  336-40; 

H.  B.  Stowe’s  Memoir,  298.  36.  C.R.  1922:170,  336,  332,  248.  37.  C.R.  1919: 
699.  38.  C.R.  1921:104.  39.  Facts  and  Factors,  Jan.,  1925.  40.  Federation 


100 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Bulletin,  Jan.,  1924.  41.  C.R.  1919:1220.  42.  C.R.  1921:880.  43.  Report  of 

Am.  Unit.  Assn.  1918,  57.  44.  James  Stokes,  704,  228,  200.  45.  C.R.  1913: 

608.  46.  C.R.  1916:891.  47.  C.R.  1918:173;  1917:1156.  48.  C.R.  1918:1138. 

49.  C.R.  1919:824  and  966.  50.  C.R.  1922:1137-8.  51.  C.R.  1920:117  and  R.E. 
8:73.  52.  Natl.  Reports  of  Y.  W.  C.  A.,  1924:85;  1920:72  and  45;  1923:77-79; 

1924:72.  53.  C.R.  1910:339.  54.  C.R.  1912:314.  55.  C.R.  1915:76.  56.  Yale 
Review,  1924:439.  57.  C.R.  1917:126.  58.  C.R.  1915:1018.  59.  C.R.  1916:605. 

60.  C.R.  1916:60 6.  61.  C.R.  1917:155.  62.  C.R.  1915:661.  63.  C.R.  1923: 
548,  95,  317-18.  64.  Ellis,  The  Unitarian  Controversy,  44.  65.  Bacon,  T.  T. 
Munger,  131.  66.  C.R.  1914:1139.  67.  C.R.  1919:459,  1910:641;  1917:403; 

1915:751;  1911:1206;  1917:1204;  1925:716;  1918:646;  1923:640;  1921:595; 

1914:427;  1922:184.  68.  C.R.  1923:477  and  1920:506.  69.  Report  of  the  Am. 

Unit.  Assn.  1920:55. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  RELIGIOUS  EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION 

They  cackled  (how  they  cackled!)  crying  everything  was 
new; 

The  old  truths  were  all  false,  the  new  lies  were  true. 

— Alfred  Noyes. 

THE  Religious  Education  Association  was  founded  by 
President  W.  R.  Harper  and  the  theological  school 
of  his  university  has  furnished  to  it  its  quota  of 
leadership.  There  has  been  a  slight  smoke-screen  of  evangelical 
membership  but  this  seems  less  noticeable  than  formerly.  Radi¬ 
cals  and  rabbis  [Dr.  S.  S.  Wise,  Dr.  Judah  Magnes]  gather 
at  its  meetings  and  aid  substantially  in  its  finances.  Thus  the 
free-thinker,  Paul  Carus,  publisher  of  The  Open  Court ,  was, 
when  living,  one  of  the  larger  subscribers  to  its  funds,  and 
Profs.  Leuba,  Stanley  Hall,  and  Starbuck,  all  of  whom  are 
listed  in  McCabe’s  Dictionary  of  Rationalists ,  have  read  papers 
at  its  sessions.  Prof.  Starbuck,  in  an  essay  published  by 
the  American  Unitarian  Association  [ Religious  Education  in 
the  New  World  View],  presents  what  is  palpably  the  Unita¬ 
rian  opinion  regarding  the  organization: 

“Salvation  by  education  is  coming  to  be  the  great  watchword 
of  this  generation.  .  .  .  Any  passing  observer  must  be  con¬ 
vinced  that  the  Unitarian  clergy  generally  are  among 
the  warmest  friends  of  better  religious  education.  .  .  .  The 
Unitarian  church  has  cordially  entered  upon  this  task  as 
one  of  its  greatest  privileges.  Here  is  the  rarest  oppor¬ 
tunity  opening  up  before  the  liberal  churches.  Happily  we  are 
accepting  it.” 

So  they  are  and  the  whole  Unitarian  phalanx  is  lined  up  in 
the  Association.  Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody  is  a  former  president. 


101 


102 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


President  Eliot  was  a  speaker  at  its  Chicago  Convention,  Dr. 
Dole  at  Cleveland,  Drs.  Rihbany  and  J.  H.  Holmes  at  Boston. 
Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot  is  director  at  large  and  most  of  the  other 
Unitarian  leaders  are  members.  “No  association  could  come 
nearer  the  ideals  of  our  own  churches  than  this,”  says  a  writer 
in  the  Christian  Register  (Unit.)  :  “It  is  an  association  devoted 
entirely  to  aims  identical  with  our  dearest  loyalties.  .  .  . 
Unitarians  can  do  no  better  work  for  their  own  cause  .  .  . 
than  to  enter  into  cordial  relation  with  the  brave  enterprise  so 
splendidly  carried  on  by  the  Religious  Education  Association.”1 
“It  is  doing  our  work  to  an  extent  that  we  little  realize,” 
writes  the  Unitarian  Dr.  Minot  Simons.  “It  is  one  of  the 
great  liberalizing  forces  of  the  modern  world.”  “A  prophetic 
organization”  rhapsodizes  another  Unitarian,  “the  most  im¬ 
portant  religious  movement  of  the  age.”2 

The  reports  of  the  Association  overflow  with  radical  utter¬ 
ances.  I  quote  in  the  note  below  from  a  paper  of  Prof.  Leuba 
of  Bryn  Mawr.*  Such  extreme  expressions  of  unbelief  are 
not  common.  On  the  other  hand  one  would  have  to  hunt  long 
through  the  twenty-three  arid  volumes  of  reports  to  find  a 

*“The  assumption  of  a  personal  cause  back  of  the  physical  universe 
has  no  scientific  value.  It  is  true  that  it  silences  the  child’s  questionings 
for  a  while,  perhaps  for  all  time,  but  this  is  not  good ;  it  is  an  evil. 
.  .  .  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  understanding  of  physical  phenom¬ 
ena  the  belief  in  God  is  not  one  of  the  steps  through  which  a  child 
needs  pass  for  it  would  not  help  him  to  ascend  to  modern  scientific 
ideas  about  nature. 

“It  might  be  maintained  that  this  God  has  an  ethical  value  for  the 
child.  .  .  .  Can  we  not  do  better  for  the  moral  and  religious  welfare 
of  our  children  than  trust  to  the  influence  of  a  miracle  worker  who, 
being  omnipotent,  does  good  and  evil  or  at  least  permits  evil  ?  Could 
not  everyone  of  the  religious  feelings  be  more  adequately  stimulated 
by  the  relations  of  the  child  to  his  parents,  to  society,  and  to  nature? 

“It  is  a  harmful  perversion  of  a  truth,  obvious  to  the  child,  to  teach 
him  that  ‘God’  gives  him  his  food,  his  clothing,  and  his  bed.  And  it 
19  of  advantage  neither  to  his  intelligence  nor  to  his  morals  for  him  to 
be  allowed  to  think  at  any  time  of  his  life  that  rain  and  sunshine, 
health  and  sickness,  depend  upon  the  will  of  an  invisible,  all-powerful 
being.” — J.  H.  Leuba,  Children’s  Conception  of  God.  R.E.  Vol.  12:13. 

In  R.E.  Vol.  6:268,  is  a  paper  on  Conversion  and  Moral  Distinctions. 
Conversion  is  assimilated  to  savage  rites  on  attaining  puberty  as  at  the 
initiation  of  Bechuana  youth.  Since  conversion  is  more  or  less  discred¬ 
ited  a  sort  of  civic  ceremony  should  be  instituted  to  take  its  place  with 
civic  oaths  and  festivals. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


103 


gracious  and  loyal  word  about  Christ.  I  must  confess  that  I 
have  not  come  across  one. 

The  Association  definitely  renounces  fresh  organization.  Its 
plan  is  to  advise  and  co-operate  with  existing  ones.  This  means 
the  conscious  and  systematic  infiltration  of  the  institutions  of 
the  church  with  the  opinions  which  the  Association  really  stands 
for  even  though  it  disavows  allegiance  to  any  particular  school 
of  thought.  The  channels  for  this  canalization  have  been  dug 
in  every  direction.  Commissions  and  councils  and  committees 
of  great  variety  have  been  set  for  the  devising  and  execution 
of  programs.  The  whole  Sunday-school  system  of  America  is 
to  be  transformed.*  “Fifteen  years  ago  a  group  of  men,  chief 
among  whom  was  President  W.  R.  Harper,  saw  that  the  hope 
of  success  for  the  great  reconstruction  movement  in  religion 
and  theology  then  imminent  lay  in  the  on-coming  generation. 
The  Sunday-school,  which  up  to  that  time  had  received  small 
attention  from  such  men,  assumed  at  once  a  new  significance 
as  furnishing  the  natural  medium  for  inculcating  new  formu¬ 
lations  of  old  truths.  The  results  of  the  original  and  con¬ 
structive  thought  of  this  man  are  seen  in  many  of  the  newer 
organizations  for  religious  efficiency”  [Georgia  Chamberlain, 
University  of  Chicago],3  notably  in  the  Religious  Education 
Association  which  Profs.  Sanders,  Kent,  and  other  Harperides 
have  led  since  Dr.  Harper’s  death.  To  this  end  the  Con¬ 
structive  Course  of  Bible  Lessons  (28  vols.)  has  come  from 
the  University  of  Chicago  and  the  Graded  Series  of  the  Bible 
Study  Union  (Scribners).  The  Blakeslee  Bible  Study  Union 
Lessons  are  edited  under  similar  auspices,  Messrs.  Kent, 
Coe,  Sanders,  and  Horr  being  the  Board  of  Consulting 
Editors. 

*A  Commission  on  Sunday  School  Associations  was  appointed  in  1909 
by  the  Religious  Education  Association.  On  it  were  Messrs.  Coe,  Cope, 
Sanders,  Starbuck,  Soares,  Votaw,  Mutch.  I  suppose  a  sentence  of 
Prof.  Starbuck’s,  when  the  commission  was  announced,  would  fairly 
express  their  point  of  view.  “The  present  defect  which  stands  in  the 
way  of  real  spirituality  is  the  implicit  assumption  that  the  end  of  relig¬ 
ious  teaching  is  to  put  such  and  such  an  amount  of  Scriptural  teaching 
into  the  minds  of  the  recipient.”  R.E.  1909:426. 


104 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


“Between  1908  and  1914,”  writes  A.  A.  Brown  ( History 
of  Religious  Education  in  Recent  Times,  183),  “a  battle  royal 
was  on  in  the  Sunday-school  world.  .  .  .  The  outcome  was 
the  International  Graded  Lessons  and  the  organization  of  the 
Sunday  School  Council  of  Evangelical  Denominations  in  1910. 
This  new  organization  was  composed  of  the  official  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  several  denominational  agencies  for  Sunday-school 
promotion,  the  editors  and  publishers  being  strongly  predomi¬ 
nant,”  was  radical  in  sympathy  and  formed  apparently  because 
radical  opinions  were  not  able  to  get  a  foothold  in  the  Inter¬ 
national  Sunday  School  Association.*  After  much  opposition 
it  succeeded  in  effecting  a  merger  with  the  older  association 
under  the  title  of  the  International  Sunday  School  Council  of 
Religious  Education  [disregarding  the  convention  vote  for  the 
title  “of  Christian  Education ”]  and  Prof.  Athearn,  who  stands 
in  close  touch  with  the  Religious  Education  Association,  was 
made  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Education. 

Later  the  name  of  the  joint  organization  was  quietly  changed 
“in  the  interest  of  brevity  and  simplicity”  into  the  International 
Council  of  Religious  Education.  We  are  told  in  the  official 
year  book  of  this  Council  (51  )f  that  “the  Religious  Education 
Association  has  decided  to  maintain  advisory  relations  only  with 

*This  S.S.  Council  of  Evangelical  Denominations  has  worked  ami¬ 
cably  with  the  R.E.A.  in  the  past.  Prof.  Kent  speaking  of  certain 
college  courses  in  Bible,  said:  “The  proposed  courses  here  outlined 
are  presented  in  behalf  of  a  joint  committee  representing  the  Association 
of  College  Instructors  in  the  Bible,  the  Religious  Education  Association, 
the  Student  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  the  S.S.  Council  of  Evangelical  Denomina¬ 
tions.”  R.E.  Vol.  8:457. 

fThis  International  Year  Book  of  Religious  Education  advertises 
Van  Loon’s  Story  of  the  Bible  thus: 

“This  wonderful  book  is  of  a  type  with  the  classic  of  John  Foster,  also 
the  Story  of  the  Bible,  which  has  served  generations  of  Sunday  School 
pupils.  While  every  part  of  the  Bible  is  written  about  with  great  and 
thrilling  beauty  the  part  devoted  to  the  life  of  Jesus  will  undoubtedly 
stand  out  as  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  reverent  biographies  of 
Christ  ever  written.  This  noble  enduring  master-piece  is  truly  called 
the  Spiritual  Story  of  Mankind.” 

The  book  is  a  “free-thought”  paraphrastic  summary  of  the  Bible. 
Yet  its  advertisement  appears  in  the  official  organ  of  the  Sunday  schools 
of  America. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


105 


the  [/wow]  committee  of  the  Council  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it 
comprehends  within  its  scope  religions  other  than  the  Christian 
religion.”* 

*The  Sunday  school  teachers  are  to  be  taken  in  hand.  Dr.  R.  L. 
Kelly  of  the  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of  Education  writes:  “Now 
that  the  merger  between  the  Int.  S.S.  Assn,  and  the  S.S.  Council  of 
Evangelical  Denominations  has  actually  been  achieved  this  demand 
[for  trained  teaching]  will  no  doubt  be  accentuated  and  rationalized.” 
C.E.  Oct.,  22:29.  The  R.E.A.  has  long  been  planning  for  this  con¬ 
tingency.  Prof.  Kent  has  been  chairman  of  the  R.E.A.  sub-committee 
on  Sunday  school  teachers’  training  courses  in  colleges  and  universities. 
(R.E.  Vol.  7:101.)  The  Teachers’  Training  Commission  of  the  R.E.A. 
reports  on  training  Sunday  school  teachers  (83):  “At  least  one-third 
of  the  first  year’s  work  should  be  given  to  the  study  of  texts  of  the 
nature  and  scope  of  Gilbert’s  Students'  Life  of  Christ  ”  R.E.  Vol.  7,  83. 

At  the  Garden  City  Conference  of  Agencies  of  Christian  Education, 
1921,  at  which  Messrs.  Cope,  Sanders,  Kent,  and  the  others  of  the 
familiar  company  were  present,  “particular  emphasis  was  laid  upon 
the  significance  of  the  proposed  consolidation  of  the  Sunday  School 
Council  of  Evangelical  Denominations  and  the  International  S.S. 
Association  and  it  was  urged  that  the  strength  of  the  whole  group  of 
agencies  in  this  conference  should  be  put  behind  this  movement."  R.E. 
Vol.  16:288. 

That  the  R.E.A.  has  from  the  first  aimed  at  the  Sunday  schools 
of  the  nation  is  clear  enough.  President  King  of  Oberlin  writes:  “It 
[the  R.E.A.]  could  not  wisely  undertake  the  publishing  of  Sunday 
School  courses  because  ...  it  would  surely  cut  it  off  from  the  much 
larger  task  of  suggestion,  of  guidance,  and  of  cooperation  concerning 
all  their  varied  agencies  and  interests.”  R.E.  Vol.  2:10. 

Messrs.  H.  H.  Meyer  and  G.  H.  Betts  are  prominent  among  the 
Religious  Education  Sunday  school  theoreticians.  In  Mr.  Betts’  How 
to  Teach  Religion  [dedicated  to  the  two  million  teachers  in  our  church 
schools]  we  are  told  (119):  “If  the  story  is  properly  told  the  child 
does  not  have  to  be  taught  that  the  Bible  myth  or  legend  is  a  myth  or 
legend:  he  accepts  it  as  such  without  troubling  to  analyze  or  explain.” 
On  120,  “But  once  a  sufficient  proportion  of  Bible  stories  is  provided 
for,  stories  should  be  freely  drawn  from  other  fields.  An  abundance 
of  rich  material  possessing  true  religious  worth  can  be  found  in  the 
myths,  legends,  folk-lore  and  heroic  tales  of  many  literatures.” 

Mr.  Meyer’s  The  Graded  Sunday  School  in  Principle  and  Practise 
[in  Modern  S.S.  Manuals,  edited  by  Kent  and  Winchester]  makes  the 
same  suggestion,  78.  “From  the  lowest  to  the  highest  grades  the  S.S. 
curriculum,  while  giving  first  place  to  Bible  instruction,  will  also  utilize 
much  extra-biblical  material.  .  .  .  Fairy  tales,  myths,  folk-lore,  and 
legends  all  have  a  place  here,”  75.  .  .  .  Mr.  Meyers  says  of  the  Bible, 
“It  is  not  a  sorcerer’s  book,  the  separate  verses  and  sentences  of  which 
are  surcharged  with  mystical  import  and  power.” 

Mr.  Athearn’s  point  of  view  can  be  perhaps  gathered  from  his  com¬ 
mendation  of  the  Beacon  Series  [Unitarian]  of  the  S.S.  Lessons  as 
“the  best  in  the  world,  those  of  the  University  of  Chicago  being  second.” 
C.R.  1911:472.  He  would  have  the  R.E.  Association  “join  with  the 
Int.  S.S.  Association  in  a  crusade  of  agitation  for  the  establishment 


106  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  has  been  the  subject 
of  Religious  Education  Association  operations.*  “The  Religious 
Education  Association,”  we  are  told  with  perfect  assurance, 
“is  steadily  accomplishing  precisely  those  purposes  which  were 
outlined  for  it  at  the  first  convention.  In  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  it 
{the  R.  E.  A.]  has  led  to  the  more  general  adoption  of 
thorough,  scholarly  courses  of  Biblical  study.”4  The  Rev.  R.  C. 
Knox  is  even  more  specific.  Speaking  of  college  Y.  M.  C.  A.’s 
and  Y.  W.  C.  A.’s  he  says:  “Above  all  in  their  Bible  study 
they  should  have  the  historical  viewpoint.  .  .  .  Men  like  King, 
Kent,  Jenks,  Fowler,  Bosworth,  and  others  have  woven  into 
the  instruction  of  Christian  Associations  the  strong  fibre  of 
thorough  and  unbiased  scholarship.” 5  Prof.  Artman,  former 
dean  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  College,  Chicago,  now  of  the 
Religious  Education  department  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
describes  the  objective  of  the  rationalizers.  “As  a  movement 
within  the  Protestant  church  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  shared  some 
of  the  weaknesses  inherited  by  the  Protestant  from  the  Catholic 
church,  such,  for  example,  as  the  bondage  of  abstract  theology, 
the  goal  of  individualistic  salvation,  legalism,  and  the  casuistry 
which  always  goes  with  it,  all  of  which  still  bind  and  enthral 
the  brotherhood  sadly.  Along  with  church  leaders  the  leaders 
of  the  Association  are  gradually  freeing  themselves  from  these 
weaknesses  and  frankly  adopting  the  socialization  of  man  as 
the  Christian  goal.”6 

Chautauqua  which  with  its  “heathen”  Methodists  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  foreign  mission  field  of  Boston  Unitarianism,  was 
in  the  days  of  Bishop  Vincent  a  center  of  genuine  religious 
instruction  and  help.  Its  department  of  religious  work  is  now 

in  our  colleges  of  departments  of  Religious  Education.”  R.E.  1911:80. 
The  [Unitarian]  Christian  Register  calls  Drs.  Cope,  Weigle  and  Ath- 
earn  “the  hope  of  the  children  of  America.”  1922:415. 

* Report  of  the  International  Committee  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  1924:40: 
“The  Religious  Work  Department  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  also  [is]  to 
maintain  relationship  with  the  Religious  Education  Association  and 
the  National  Association  of  Bible  Instructors,  35.  Boys  Work.  Impor¬ 
tant  relationships  are  to  be  maintained  with  [among  others]  the  Relig¬ 
ious  Education  Association. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


107 


in  charge  of  Dean  Shailer  Mathews  of  the  University  of 
Chicago.  A  pastor  at  Chautauqua  writes:  “Dean  Mathews 
is  one  of  the  ultra  new  theologians  and  a  very  talkative  one 
at  that.  Result,  complete  drying  up  of  the  fervent  spiritual 
zeal  and  evangelistic  fervor  of  the  old  days.  Old  Chautauquans 
come  back  each  year  and  seek  by  religious  meetings  to  kindle  the 
fire  anew,  but  in  vain.”7  A  delegation  from  the  University  of 
Chicago  has  carried  on  religious  education:  Mathews,  New 
Testament;  Willett,  Old  Testament;  and  Miss  Chamberlain, 
stories  in  religious  teaching.  Religious  Education  Association 
Weeks  are  held  with  Messrs.  Coe,  Votaw,  Cope,  I.  F.  Wood, 
Sanders,  and  Starbuck  as  speakers,  the  last  a  one-time  psycholo¬ 
gist  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association  [registered  as  we 
have  seen  in  McCabe’s  Dictionary  of  Rationalists ],  discussing 
“Character  Development  Through  the  Sunday  School.”8  Prof. 
Peabody,  the  Harvard  Unitarian,  has  been  a  member  of  the 
Chautauqua  faculty  of  religious  education;  also  Prof.  Hoben, 
a  radical  of  Chicago  University.  Dr.  H.  Augustine  Smith, 
director  of  the  Department  of  Fine  Arts  in  Religion  of  the 
Religious  Education  Association,  has  charge  of  Chautauqua 
music.  He  is  the  editor  of  the  Century  Company’s  Hymns 
for  the  Living  Age *  which  attempts  to  tune  our  tongues  to 
Unitarian  psalmody,  every  eighth  hymn  in  the  book  coming 
from  that  source.  [“If  a  man  w’ere  permitted  to  make  the 

*This  hymnal  and  The  Hymnal  for  American  Youth  which  the 
Century  Company  also  publishes  fairly  bubble  with  “leaven.”  One 
thinks  of  a  packed  caucus  when  one  observes  these  strange  faces  in  a 
supposedly  evangelical  hymnbook.  John  Haynes  Holmes  appears  with 
four  hymns,  Hosmer  with  five,  Samuel  Longfellow  with  fifteen  [more 
than  any  other  contributor]  and  Longfellow’s  old  co-worker  in  the 
compilation  of  Unitarian  hymnbooks,  Samuel  Johnson,  with  four.  Long¬ 
fellow’s  biographer  tells  how  the  “two  Sams”  eliminated  from  their 
“Hymns  of  the  Spirit”  such  numbers  as  “attributed  a  peculiar  quality 
and  special  authority  to  Christianity  and  recognized  a  supernatural 
element  in  the  personality  of  Jesus.”  Then  we  have  a  raft  of  medioc¬ 
rities — Bulfinch,  Tarrant,  Chickering  Williams,  Wile,  Clute,  Freckle- 
ton,  Blatchford,  Burleigh,  Page  Hopps,  Russell  and  Wreford.  Vague 
fustian  abounds,  “Marching  wuth  the  heroes,  comrades  of  the  strong,” 
“Life  of  ages  richly  poured,”  and  the  like.  Everywhere  the  emphasis  is 
on  the  epigeia  rather  than  on  the  epourania.  Christ  is  mentioned 
by  name  but  once  in  these  67  Unitarian  hymns  and  allusions  to  Him 
are  to  be  found  in  but  four  or  five  others. 


108 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


hymns  of  a  church  he  need  not  care  who  should  make  its 
theology”  The  Church  of  the  Spirit,  F.  G.  Peabody  (15)]. 
Mr.  Smith  stands  for  modernism  in  music.  Hear  him  on 
“Fine  Arts  in  the  Curriculum”: 

“New  subjects  claim  the  attention  of  both  church  and  state. 
Armistice  Day,  Church  Federation  Day,  City  Beautiful  Week, 
World  Peace  and  Brotherhood  Education  Day.  New  texts, 
new  ritual,  will  work  wonders  in  displacing  imprecatory  psalms, 
slashing  sections  out  of  canticles  and  chants,  sluffing  off  vain 
repetitions  and  pagan  wailings.  .  .  .  The  fine  art  of  community 
ritual  is  a  direct  protest  against  ecclesiastical  worship.  The 
latter  has  been  built  upon  theological  tenets,  on  the  prophets 
and  ecclesiastics  of  old,  on  tradition  and  smug  prejudice.”9 

The  Bible  chairs  in  the  colleges  are  dominated  by  men  who 
are  in  close  touch  with  the  Religious  Education  Association. 
The  National  Council  of  Bible  Instructors  has  in  its  organiza¬ 
tion  a  large  part  of  the  three  hundred  or  more  college  Bible 
teachers.*  Its  president  up  to  his  recent  death  was  Prof.  C.  F. 
Kent  of  Yale.  As  his  voluminous  writings  are  used  by  most 
of  his  colleagues  it  will  be  worth  while  to  examine  at  least 
one  of  them.  Prof.  Kent  speaks  of  the  criticism  he  favors  as 
“an  exact  science.”  The  impression  one  rather  gets  from  his 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  is  of  the  most  uncritical  romancing. 

The  resurrection  evanesces  into  mere  illusion.  “Pursued  by 
fear  and  anxiety  Peter  would  easily  reach  the  sea  of  Galilee 
on  the  third  day  from  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  With  the  eye  of  faith 
he  saw  the  Friend  and  Master.” 

What  then  became  of  Christ’s  body? 

“Many  hold  that  the  body  was  removed  some  time  between 
the  close  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  sunrise  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week  at  the  command  of  Joseph  who  had  offered  the 

*A  New  York  conference  of  this  organization  at  Columbia  Univer¬ 
sity,  sixty  Bible  teachers  in  colleges  and  Y.  M.  C.  A.’s  being  present, 
was  opened  by  Dr.  Pritchett  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation  with  the  words, 
“Science  has  rendered  an  enormous  service  to  religion  by  stripping  the 
life  of  Christ  of  the  myths  and  legends  and  imagery  by  which  it  has 
been  covered.”  R.E.  Yol.  7:707. 


The  Religious  Education  'Association 


109 


tomb  as  a  temporary  resting-place.  Naturally  Joseph  would 
wish  to  reserve  the  tomb  for  the  use  of  his  own  family. 

“In  any  case  the  problem  of  what  became  of  it  was  of  sig¬ 
nificance  chiefly  to  those  who  shared  the  current  Jewish  belief 
in  a  bodily  resurrection.” 

This  is  historical  criticism !  Kent  tells  us  that  “many  modern 
New  Testament  scholars  are  inclined  to  interpret  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  stories  as  visions  without  objective  reality.”  If  Christ  be 
not  risen  your  faith  is  vain,  was  Paul’s  categorical  affirmation. 
The  Yale  professor  thinks  differently. 

“This  view,  far  removed  as  it  is  from  the  current  doctrines 
of  the  church,  does  not  undermine  the  historical  foundations 
of  Christianity.  The  essential  elements  in  the  Gospel  are  what 
Jesus  was  and  taught  and  these  corner-stones  stand  quite  in¬ 
dependent  of  the  resurrection  stories.” 

Jesus’  mighty  works  were  not  so  mighty  after  all.  Even  the 
miracles  of  healing  were  not  always  permanent.  .  .  .  Matthew 
12 : 43  suggests  that  certain  of  these  acts  of  mental  healing 
were  only  temporarily  effective  and  that  a  recurrence  of  their 
maladies  sometimes  left  the  poor  victim  in  a  more  pitiable  state 
than  before.  The  cure  of  leprosy  was  presumably  merely  the 
relief  of  “a  curable  skin  disease.”  The  daughter  of  Jairus  was 
in  fact  not  dead  but  sleeping  and  Jesus  assured  Himself  of  this 
before  He  undertook  to  raise  her  up.  In  general  one  gets  the 
impression  from  this  book  that  Christ’s  cures  were  mere  auto¬ 
suggestion.  They  are  compared  with  those  of  the  Holy  Coat 
of  T reves. 

Of  course  our  Lord’s  power  over  the  forces  of  nature  cannot 
be  allowed.  “Jesus  words,  ‘Peace,  be  still,’  are  even  more 
appropriate  if  originally  addressed  to  His  perturbed  disciples 
rather  than  to  the  troubled  sea.  The  feeding  of  the  multitudes 
is  to  be  thought  of  as  a  spiritual  feeding.” 

The  whole  Scripture  is  trimmed  to  the  materialistic  dogma 
of  the  impossibility  of  the  miraculous.  There  can  be  no  such 
thing  as  prediction.  “The  Christian  apocalypse  in  Matthew 
24  must  have  been  written  about  a  decade  after  the  destruction 


110 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  Jerusalem  for  it  reveals  an  intimate  familiarity  with  that 
event.”  This  assumption  makes  of  Prof.  Kent  a  late-dater  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  “modern  criticism”  in  the  person  of  Har- 
nack  assigns  Luke  to  the  sixties  and  the  other  Synoptics 
earlier. 

Incident  after  incident  in  gospel  history  is  set  aside  as  untrue. 
Our  Lord  could  not  have  walked  on  water.  “An  account  of 
how  Jesus  in  the  blackness  of  the  night  waded  out  to  meet 
His  disciples  has  been  unintentionally  clothed  with  a  miraculous 
splendor.”  “The  statement  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  that  Jesus 
was  arrested  by  a  cohort  of  soldiers  numbering  many  hundreds 
and  that  they  first  fell  to  the  ground  at  the  sight  of  Him  has 
all  the  characteristics  of  later  tradition.”  The  Transfiguration, 
it  is  suggested,  is  a  lost  account  of  Jesus’  resurrection  appearance 
to  Peter.  So  is  the  New  Testament  turned  topsy-turvy  as  by 
Poltergeister.  As  the  incidents  of  the  Passion  are  assimilated 
to  the  stories  of  Caesar’s  death  [Virgil  in  his  Georgies  states 
that,  “at  the  death  of  Caesar  there  was  an  eclipse  from  the 
fourth  to  the  ninth  hour”],  so  the  miraculous  in  His  ministry  is 
compared  with  Gautama’s  incarnation,  temptation,  and  feeding 
of  multitudes.  Here  is  apparently  nothing  more  than  mytho- 
poeic  fancy. 

Our  Lord’s  “conception  of  Fatherhood”  we  are  told  strongly 
suggests  that  Joseph  was  wise,  just,  and  considerate.  .  .  .  Un¬ 
like  many  oriental  fathers  he  apparently  took  his  children  and 
especially  his  eldest  son  Jesus  into  his  confidence  and  thus 
established  that  relation  of  paternal  comradeship  which  is  pres¬ 
ent  in  Jesus’  teachings.”  So  from  this  source  comes  our  Lord’s 
lofty  teaching  concerning  the  Father.  He  is  not  the  eternal 
Son  of  the  eternal  Father  but  earthly  son  of  a  just  man  and 
good  parent.  Nor  did  He  owe  His  divine  wisdom  to  the  Father. 
In  Nazareth,  Jesus  had  ample  opportunity  to  study  intimately 
the  varied  phases  of  human  life  so  that  in  time  it  was  unnec¬ 
essary  that  any  should  tell  Him  “for  he  knew  what  was  in 
the  heart  of  man.”  The  account  of  His  boyhood  visit  to  the 
temple  discloses  one  “who  for  the  lack  of  a  better  term  we 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


111 


are  wont  to  call  a  genius  .  .  .  but  from  another  point  of  view 
Jesus  was  simply  a  normal  boy.” 

And  the  deepest  meaning  which  Prof.  Kent  can  find  in 
Christ’s  life  and  death  is  that  of  teacher.  He  was  the  saviour 
because  He  was  the  teacher  of  man.  .  .  .  Having  learned  the 
value  of  service  He  taught  men  how  to  find  their  life  by  losing 
it  in  behalf  of  their  fellow-men.  .  .  .  Jesus’  death  was  the 
supreme  demonstration  that  the  one  unfailing  way  in  which 
sinners  may  be  saved  is  the  way  of  love  and  complete  self- 
sacrifice  [i.  e.,  of  their  own  love  and  self-sacrifice].  This  is, 
according  to  Prof.  Kent,  the  meaning  of  Jesus’  death.  As  to 
Jesus’  saying,  “For  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  .  .  .  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,”  he  makes 
this  a  mere  comment  of  Mark  under  Pauline  inspiration,  in  no 
way  representing  Christ’s  point  of  view.  So  jauntily  does  he 
juggle  documents  in  the  name  of  historical  criticism.10 

Of  this  criticism  he  observes  elsewhere,  “Those  who  catch 
this  spirit  become  infected  with  an  enthusiasm  almost  Pente¬ 
costal.  It  is  destructive  only  of  superstition  which  in  former 
times  obscured  the  real  spiritual  greatness  of  the  Biblical 
writers.”11 

“A  new  day  has  opened  for  the  presentation  of  the  Christian 
religion,”  says  the  Unitarian  reviewer  of  this  book,  “a  day  in 
which  many  men  hitherto  divided  will  clasp  hands  and  work 
together  in  spiritual  ardor.”12 

The  Bible  chairs  in  American  colleges  were  established  by 
men  and  women  with  an  earnest  interest  in  the  development  of 
Christian  faith  and  character.  Never  in  the  world  would  they 
have  countenanced  such  frivolous  and  perverted  teaching  as  we 
have  just  quoted.  But  it  is  just  such  teaching  that  is  dominant. 

That  great  pioneer  of  women’s  education,  Mary  Lyon,  when 
connected  with  Derry  Academy  made  so  much  of  Bible  teaching 
that  the  trustees  objected.  So  she  went  with  her  green  velvet 
collecting  bag  among  the  farmers  of  Western  Massachusetts 
until  she  had  secured  enough  to  found  an  institution  [Mt. 
Holyoke]  which  should  be  “perpetually  Christian.”  The  out- 


112 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


put  of  useful  women  which  followed  through  the  century  has 
had  no  parallel.  They  were  trained  by  her  in  the  Scriptures 
and  in  Butler’s  Analogy  and  were  followed  to  distant  lands  by 
her  prayers,  the  tenderness  of  which  was  a  tradition  of  the 
school. 

Prof.  Laura  H.  Wild,  who  now  teaches  the  Bible  at  Mt. 
Holyoke,  has  little  of  the  old  spirit  in  spite  of  her  past  as  a 
Congregational  preacher.  Her  views  are  “dynamic,  not  static.” 
President  Wooley  introduces  her  to  the  public  as  “a  re-inter¬ 
preter  of  evangelical  Christianity  for  the  young  men  and  wo¬ 
men  of  the  student  classes  who  cannot  be  held  by  an  outworn 
phraseology.” 

This  lady  tells  her  young  women  at  South  Hadley  that  the 
Apostles’  Creed  is  but  “a  kind  of  shibboleth,  a  necessary  pass¬ 
word  to  the  orthodox  but  totally  without  meaning  in  as  far 
as  real  living  is  concerned.  College  students  do  not  care  to  waste 
their  time  examining  into  such  an  historic  document  when  life 
is  so  full  of  interesting  questions  which  they  cannot  begin  to 
compass  in  four  short  years.” 

It  takes  a  modern  broom,  indeed,  to  make  such  a  clean  sweep 
of  the  past. 

“Shall  we,”  she  asks,  “be  followers  of  the  interpretations  of 
modern  scholars  or  of  interpretations  evolved  in  the  less 
enlightened  days  of  church  history?”  The  question  answers 
itself. 

“Christian  democracy  is  the  keynote  of  the  modern  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Jesus’  teachings.”  It’s  “a  much  more  worth-while 
effort  than  to  exert  oneself  to  get  into  the  body  of  the  elect.” 
The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  “refusal  to  co-operate  with 
the  vital  principle  of  betterment.”  Those  who  “substitute 
whole-hearted  service  of  the  Socialist  cause”  for  such  “ecclesi¬ 
astical  rites  as  the  Holy  Communion”  compel  our  admiration. 
“Sad  to  say,”  however,  “some  good  church  members  are  not 
ready  to  shift  their  emphasis  from  the  Nicene  creed  to  the 
brotherhood  of  man.”  “It’s  no  wonder  that  the  majority  of 
young  people  are  puzzled.”  “The  evangelical  terminology 


The  Religious  Education  Association  113 

seems  to  have  been  stranded  in  a  lagoon;  the  currents  of  life 
are  passing  it  very  swiftly.” 

“Jesus  the  Great  Teacher  is  the  divine  messenger  of  this 
good  news  of  brotherhood  .  .  .  the  one  great  and  apparently 
only  saving  idea  for  the  progress  of  humanity.”  “The  most 
effective  appeal  of  the  present  day  seems  to  be  far  different 
from  the  appeals  of  the  past  that  have  ‘converted’  many 
souls.” 

Professor  Wild  has  also  written  of  “The  Evolution  of  the 
Hebrew  People.”  One  would  say  a  Buckle  rediva.  “Born  in 
the  tropics,  as  we  believe,  from  the  find  of  the  first  man  in 
Java ,  man  would  always  have  remained  an  infant  in  that 
steaming,  enervated  climate  had  he  not  wandered.”  Old 
Testament  religion  can  certainly  be  accounted  for  on  natural 
grounds. 

“The  monotonous  surroundings  [of  the  Semites]  coupled 
with  some  of  the  most  marvelous  effects  of  sky  and 
landscape  due  to  the  dryness  of  the  atmosphere,  account  un¬ 
doubtedly  for  much  of  their  religious  fervor,  at  the  same  time 
narrowing  them  down  to  a  few  great  ideas.”  God  had  little 
to  do  with  Israel’s  history,  at  least  directly.  “There  were  three 
factors  that  entered  into  their  [the  Hebrews]  development,  the 
land,  their  outside  enemies  and  their  native  genius.  Some  would 
add  a  fourth,  the  help  of  God,  but  God’s  providence  manifests 
itself  through  the  first  three  in  shaping  destiny.  Therefore  in 
beginning  the  study  of  Bible  history  our  first  consideration 
must  be  the  land.” 

The  great  word,  “in  the  beginning  God,”  goes  into  the  dis¬ 
card  together  with  the  Apostles’  Creed. 

After  this  we  can  look  for  anything.  The  story  of  the  Pass¬ 
over’s  institution  is  legend.  The  Abraham,  Joseph,  and  David 
cycles  of  stories,  fictitious.  The  first  is  compared  with  the 
Greek  myth  of  Iphigenia;  the  second  with  Ali  Baba  and  the 
Forty  Thieves.  “Paul’s  writings,”  we  are  told,  “are  not  espe¬ 
cially  in  vogue  today.  We  are  more  or  less  out  of  touch  with 
his  mode  of  expression.”  “The  church  has  been  affected  too 


114 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


much  by  Pauline  theology.  It  is  easier  to  understand  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  than  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith.”  We  are  advised  to  compare  Galatians  with  other 
“essays”  such  as  Emerson  On  Self-reliance  and  Dr.  Cabot’s 
What  Men  Live  By.13 

The  first  book  recommended  for  collateral  reading  in  Biblical 
History  IB  at  Mt.  Holyoke  College  is  the  Outline  of  History  by 
the  free-thinker  and  king  of  sciolists,  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells.  Bade, 
Fowler,  Cornill  and  the  rest  follow. 

Who  could  believe  that  from  training  of  this  sort  women 
would  be  developed  such  as  those  who  founded  the  Huguenot 
college  at  Wellington,  South  Africa,  the  daughter  college  of 
Mary  Lyon’s  Mt.  Holyoke? 

Yet  in  1923-24,  Prof.  Wild  was  sent  to  Ginling  College, 
Nanking,  a  union  college  for  girls  operated  jointly  by  Presby¬ 
terians,  Baptists,  and  Disciples  to  spend  a  sabbatical  year  teach¬ 
ing  young  Chinese  girls.  This  was  one  of  the  women’s  colleges 
which  benefited  by  the  three  million  fund  for  the  higher  edu¬ 
cation  of  women  on  mission  fields  raised  the  preceding  year 
among  American  Christians. 

Flenry  F.  Durant,  the  founder  of  Wellesley  College,  was  a 
man  of  the  world,  Harvard-trained,  leading  pleader  at  the 
Suffolk  bar.  He  was  converted  to  Christ  and  became  a  lay 
preacher.  A  visit  with  D.  L.  Moody  to  Mt.  Holyoke  interested 
him  in  women’s  education.  He  presented  that  college  with  a 
library  building  and  in  1871  laid  the  corner-stone  of  the  new 
college  at  Wellesley.  In  that  corner-stone  he  placed  a  Bible 
in  which  was  written, 

“This  building  is  humbly  dedicated  to  our  Heavenly  Father 
with  the  hope  and  prayer  that  He  may  always  be  first  in 
everything  in  this  institution;  that  His  Word  may  be  faithfully 
taught  here  and  that  He  will  use  it  as  a  means  of  leading 
precious  souls  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Except  the  Lord 
build  the  house  they  labor  in  vain  that  build.” 

Mr.  Durant  refused  to  have  his  name  given  to  the  college 
or  to  permit  a  portrait  of  himself  in  the  buildings.  “The 


The  Religious  Education  Association  115 

college  belongs  to  God  not  to  me,”  he  would  say,  and  in  his 
family  was  wont  to  pray,  “O  Lord,  bless  Thy  college.”*14 

Miss  Helen  M.  Gould  founded  a  professorship  in  biblical 
history  in  Wellesley  College.  It  is  now  filled  by  Prof.  Eliza 
H.  Kendrick,  who  is  prominent  in  the  Religious  Education 
Association.  Prof.  Kendrick  appeared  at  the  1917  convention 
of  the  R.  E.  A.  with  a  pupil  who  read  a  paper  on  the  effect 
of  the  two  years  required  Bible  study  at  Wellesley.  It  de¬ 
scribes  an  unenlightened  girl  coming  to  college  “into  a  com¬ 
munity  where  independence  of  thought  is  developed.” 

“She  enters  a  class  in  biblical  history.  One  by  one  she  sees 
them  go — the  facts  which  to  her  were  the  very  foundation  of 
her  religious  life.  She  can  no  longer  believe  in  the  creation 
of  the  world  as  told  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the  story  of 
Moses  and  the  burning  bush.  As  she  goes  on  into  the  study 
of  the  New  Testament  higher  criticism  lays  bare  to  her  the 
fact  that  the  story  of  Jesus’  birth  is  not  authenticated,  that 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  and  Christ’s  walking  on  the 
sea  cannot  be  taken  literally  and  that  possibly  even  her  belief 
in  the  Resurrection  is  groundless.  In  fact  all  the  mysterious 
and  supernatural  gifts  of  Jesus  which  had  formed  the  core  of 
her  spiritual  life  now  seem  either  based  on  unhistorical  facts 
or  disapproved  by  the  workings  of  natural  laws.  .  .  .  Her  loss 
of  faith  in  everything  divine  first  stuns  her  but  leaves  her  at 
last,  as  she  styles  herself,  ‘a  regretful  agnostic.’” 

The  testimony  of  other  students  is  given.  One  who  had 
expressed  her  hope  that  the  college  would  “leave  her  the 
divinity  of  Christ  untouched”  has  become  reconciled  to  her 
loss.  “I  have  learned  to  judge  Jesus  by  what  I  found  him  to 

*“Mr.  Durant  preached  today.  If  only  you  could  have  heard  him, 
all  of  you.  It  seems  as  if  some  great  strange  thing  had  happened  and 
we  must  speak  and  walk  softly  as  when  some  one  has  died.  There  was 
an  atmosphere  of  sacredness  about  it  all.  It  is  enough  to  break  one’s 
heart  to  see  his  grand  white  head  among  these  hundreds  of  girls  and 
hear  him  plead  wdth  them  for  ‘noble,  wrhite,  unselfish  womanhood,’  to 
hear  him  tell  of  his  hope  and  happiness  in  them  and  his  longing  that 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  should  cleanse  them  from  all  sin.  That  was 
his  text.  I  never  heard  and  never  shall  hear  anything  quite  like  it  for 
clear  logic  and  tender  appeal.” — Alice  Freeman  Palmer,  110. 


116  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

be,  not  by  some  vague  ideas  banded  down  to  me.”  It  should  * 
not  be  forgotten  that  all  Wellesley  students  are  required  to 
pass  through  this  Unitarianizing  mill;  also  that  there  is  no 
corrective  in  outside  Bible  study.  “Because  of  this  study  [in 
the  class-room]  the  Christian  Association  has  a  definite  back¬ 
ground  on  which  to  base  its  voluntary  Bible  study  classes.  The 
aim  of  these  voluntary  classes  can  be  to  work  out  the  principles 
already  attained  in  required  biblical  history  study  into  a  code 
for  every  day  life.”15  Wellesley  College  conducts  a  Community 
School  of  Religious  Education  for  training  its  students  to 
popularize  what  they  have  learned.  It  may  be  added  that  Prof. 
Kendrick  spent  her  sabbatical  year  in  mission  institutions  in 
the  Far  East  in  1923,  as  Prof.  Wild  in  1924. 

Prof.  Kent,  a  dozen  years  ago,  when  reporting  as  chairman 
of  the  R.  E.  A.  sub-committee  on  Sunday  school  teachers* 
training  courses  in  colleges,  said  that  “in  equipment  and  variety 
of  courses  the  women’s  colleges  are  far  in  advance  of  other 
institutions.”16  And  a  kindred  spirit,  Prof.  I.  F.  Wood  of 
Smith,  gives  weighty  reasons  why  “women’s  colleges  ought  to 
give  special  attention  to  religious  education  .  .  .  because  the 
religion  of  the  future  is  more  in  the  hands  of  women  than  of 
men.  ...  In  the  main  the  women’s  colleges  have  responded  to 
the  demand.  .  .  .  Most  of  them  present  the  Bible  in  the  light 
of  modem  conceptions.”17 

Sophia  Smith  left  in  her  will  $375,000  to  found  an  “evan¬ 
gelically  Christian”  college  for  women  at  Northampton,  Mass. 
The  third  article  of  her  will  read,  “Sensible  of  what  the 
Christian  religion  has  done  for  myself  and  believing  that  all 
education  should  be  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man, 

I  direct  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  be  daily  and  systematically 
read  and  studied  in  said  college  and  that  all  the  discipline 
shall  be  pervaded  by  the  spirit  of  evangelical  Christian  religion.” 
In  order  the  more  carefully  to  fulfil  the  wishes  of  the  founder, 
a  Unitarian  woman  preacher,  Rev.  Margaret  B.  Crook,  has 
been  made  associate  professor  in  biblical  literature  at  Smith 
College.  Miss  Crook  comes  from  the  Octagon  Chapel,  Nor- 


The  Religious  Education  Association  117 

wich,  England,  associated  with  the  Martineaus,  and  employs 
her  leisure  time  in  doing  “missionary  work”  in  the  Middle 
West,  lecturing  on  “The  Challenge  of  Fundamentalism  for 
Liberal  Christianity,”  etc.  Prof.  I.  F.  Wood,  the  head  of  the 
Bible  department,  is  a  “modern”  of  the  conventional  type. 

In  his  inaugural  address  at  Bryn  Mawr,  President  Rhoads, 
speaking  of  the  founder  of  the  college,  Dr.  Joseph  Wright 
Taylor,  said: 

“As  in  the  case  of  almost  all  of  our  institutions  of  learning 
Bryn  Mawr  was  founded  in  motives  of  Christian  benevolence. 
Dr.  Taylor  desired  that  it  should  ever  maintain  and  teach  an 
evangelical  and  primitive  Christianity  as  set  forth  in  the  New 
Testament  and  the  trustees  will  endeavor  to  carry  out  this 
trust  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  imposed.”  A  letter  from 
an  English  Friend,  Mr.  J.  Bevan  Braithwaite,  was  also  read 
at  these  exercises.  “We  well  know,”  it  ran,  “that  Dr.  Taylor 
had  especially  at  heart  in  its  establishment  an  education  hal¬ 
lowed  and  ennobled  by  the  wisdom,  the  truth,  and  the  love  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  ...  It  was  his  prayer  that 
Bryn  Mawr  should  become  in  the  highest  and  most  blessed 
sense  a  school  of  Christ  in  which  the  students  should  learn 
of  Him  under  the  training  and  gracious  discipline  of  his  Holy 
Spirit  the  lessons  of  His  truth  and  love.  It  was  his  joy  to 
devote  his  property  to  the  noble  purpose  of  preparing  Christian 
woman  to  take  her  just  place  of  influence  in  the  sin-stricken 
and  self-seeking  world.  .  .  .  He  would  have  the  college  ever 
prove  the  presidency  of  the  divine  Master  in  a  continual  illus¬ 
tration  of  the  word  which  seemed  like  the  keynote  of  his  humble 
and  devoted  life.  ‘God  forbid  that  I  should  glory  save  in  the 
Cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’  ”18 

That  consummate  scholar  and  saint,  Dr.  Rendel  Harris,  was 
the  ideal  Bible  teacher  for  Bryn  Mawr.  He  was  succeeded 
by  Prof.  G.  A.  Barton.  In  running  through  Barton’s  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  [in  the  Great  Leaders  ( !)  Series]  one  recalls  the 
early  German  rationalists  whom  Strauss  so  unmercifully  man¬ 
handled. 


118 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


The  leprosy  which  Jesus  healed  was  presumably  a  curable 
skin-disease.  “In  the  moonlight  [at  Gethsemane]  the  per¬ 
spiration  looked  like  drops  of  blood.”  On  Galilee  our  Lord 
rebuked  the  storm,  saying  “Peace,  be  still.”  “One  cannot  help 
wondering  whether  the  words  were  not  addressed  to  the  com¬ 
plaining  disciples,  but  the  wind,  as  so  often  happens  there, 
subsided  as  quickly  as  it  had  risen.  .  .  .  The  disciples  thought 
that  the  blowing  had  ceased  in  obedience  to  their  master’s 
command.”  “The  contortions  and  cries  of  the  mad  man”  was 
that  which  scared  the  Gadarene  swine  into  the  sea.  Jesus’ 
prediction  of  a  resurrection  in  three  days  was  simply  a  prophecy 
of  a  final  resurrection,  for  the  words  “after  three  days”  may 
mean  “in  the  future.” 

The  story  of  the  Transfiguration  “expresses  in  oriental 
imagery  the  impressions  made  on  uncritical  minds.”  “The 
modern  observer”  would  not  have  been  so  easily  duped.  “The 
rainy  season  was  not  over  and  a  dark  cloud  floated  by.  Perhaps 
it  thundered.  .  .  .  Now  the  thunder,  if  thunder  it  was,  seemed 
to  the  disciples  to  proclaim  and  confirm  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  God’s  own  chosen  Son.”  The  fish  from  whose 
mouth  the  coin  was  taken  by  Jesus  was  really  sold  and  the 
proceeds  paid  the  tax  for  Peter  and  his  Lord.  The  miraculous 
embroidery  came  in  later  time.  The  roots  of  the  Communion 
run  into  the  fetishistic  past.  “Early  men  in  many  parts  of  the 
world  have  thought  that  by  eating  the  flesh  of  gods  or  heroes 
they  gained  something  of  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  beings 
whose  flesh  they  consumed.  Jesus  in  instituting  the  Communion 
chose  a  symbolism  which  had  been  employed  from  the  times 
of  the  cave-dwelling  men.”19 

And  much  more  of  the  same  sort. 

It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  old-fashioned  rationalism  can  come 
under  the  heading  of  that  “evangelical  Christianity”  which 
the  founder  intended  should  characterize  the  life  of  Bryn 
Mawr.  When  we  come  to  Prof.  Leuba  we  have  an  unpardon¬ 
able  case  of  violation  of  a  testator’s  wishes.  Leuba  is  an  atheist 
who  glories  in  the  prevalence  of  atheism  in  American  college 


The  Religions  Education  Association 


119 


faculties.  The  conclusion  from  his  questionnaire  [in  “The 
Belief  in  God  and  Immortality”]  is  “that  disbelief  in  a  personal 
God  and  in  personal  immortality  is  directly  proportional  to 
abilities  making  for  success  in  the  sciences.”  Most  of  these 
atheists,  he  tells  us,  “are  teachers  in  schools  of  higher  learning. 
There  is  no  class  of  men  who  on  the  whole  rival  them  for 
the  influence  exerted  upon  the  educated  public  and  upon  the 
young  men  from  whom  are  to  come  most  of  the  leaders  of 
the  next  generation.”  That  their  influence  is  breaking  down 
Christian  faith  of  students  is  registered  by  Prof.  Leuba  as  a 
matter  of  course. 

“The  student  statistics  show  that  young  people  enter  college 
possessed  of  the  beliefs  still  accepted  in  the  average  home  of 
the  land  and  that  as  their  mental  powers  mature  and  their 
horizon  widens,  a  large  percentage  of  them  abandon  the  car¬ 
dinal  Christian  beliefs.  It  seems  probable  that  on  leaving  college 
from  40%  to  45%  of  the  students  with  whom  we  are  concerned 
deny  or  doubt  the  fundamental  dogmas  of  the  Christian  religion. 

“The  difference  between  these  young  people,  the  flower  of 
the  land,”  continues  this  professor  of  psychology  in  what  was 
founded  to  be  a  Christian  college,  “who  turn  to  God  when 
they  need  him,  and  the  Zulus  who  think  of  the  spirits  of  their 
forefathers  only  when  they  go  to  war,  is  that  the  savages  never 
disbelieve  in  the  existence  of  these  forefathers  whereas  in  their 
calm  moments  college  men  and  woman  do  deny  the  God  on 
whom  they  call  in  time  of  their  need.”*20 

*A  death  that  ends  all  Leuba  thinks  “a  satisfactory,  even  a  desirable 
goal.”.  .  .  “Many  of  the  most  distinguished  moralists  condemn  the  be¬ 
lief  [in  immortality]  as  ethically  wrong,”  313.  Yet  “much  is  made  of 
it  among  benighted  Christian  populations,”  313. 

Prof.  Leuba  has  the  fanatic  spirit  of  Soviet  atheism.  He  would  tear 
down  all  that  reminds  of  God.  The  Thanksgiving  Proclamations  should 
be  discontinued.  “From  an  expression  of  genuine  belief  this  custom  has 
become  an  objectionable  tradition  which,  the  sooner  it  is  abandoned, 
the  better  for  those  who  keep  it  up  and  for  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 
It  w7ere  better  instead  that  we  should  be  taught  to  realize  our  depen¬ 
dence  upon  each  other  and  the  gratitude  we  owe  to  the  millions  who 
strive,  often  in  material  distress,  in  order  to  build  our  material  and 
spiritual  prosperity.” — Belief  in  God  and  Immortality,  324. 

President  Garfield  of  Williams  tells  of  “an  attempt  made  during 


120 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


In  Matthew  Vassar’s  address  at  the  first  meeting  of  the 
board  of  trustees  of  Vassar  College  he  insisted  that  “the  train¬ 
ing  of  our  students  should  never  be  intrusted  to  the  skeptical 
or  the  irreligious.,,21  Prof.  Durant  Drake  is  a  member  of 
the  council  of  the  Religious  Education  Association.  The 
American  Unitarian  Association  publishes  his  tract,  What 
Religious  Education  Might  Be. 

“The  so-called  religious  education  of  today,”  he  tells  us, 
“consists  chiefly  of  bits  of  the  history  [or  pseudo-history]  and 
literature  of  the  Jews.  ...  I  raise  the  question  whether  the 
Old  Testament  legends  and  chronicles  or  even  the  gospel  inci¬ 
dents  and  the  missionary  journeys  of  Paul  are  the  directest  and 
most  vital  means  of  awakening  or  reinforcing  the  religious  life 
of  youth.  To  try  to  awaken  interest  in  the  religion  of  today 
through  a  study  of  the  Psalms  and  sermons  and  anecdotes  of  the 
Jews  of  two  thousand  years  ago  is  a  curious  pedagogical  inver¬ 
sion.”  He  deprecates  spending  time  in  “the  exegesis  of  old  Jew¬ 
ish  legends  and  of  the  hasty  letters  which  an  early  Christian 
missionary  wrote  to  his  infant  churches  instead  of  grappling  by 
day  and  by  night  to  understand  the  extremely  complex  problems 
of  today.”  The  account  of  the  life  and  character  of  Jesus  given 
by  most  Christian  churches  is  described  as  “naively  unhistorical. 
This  embroidery  of  miracles,  this  acceptance  at  their  face  value 
of  the  biased  and  na'ive  chronicles  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
writers,  is  one  of  the  baneful  aspects  of  modern  Bible  teaching.” 

the  year  to  place  before  students  through  the  morning  chapel  readings 
some  conception  of  the  development  of  the  idea  of  God  .  .  .  from  the 
conception  of  Jehovah  as  a  tribal  deity,  jealous  and  revengeful,  to  a 
righteous  and  merciful  God  of  all  nations.”  C.E.  Nov.  ’24:29.  To 
Prof.  J.  B.  Pratt  who  is  the  successor  of  that  great  Christian  educator, 
Mark  Hopkins,  in  the  chair  of  Intellectual  and  Moral  Philosophy  at 
Williams  we  owe  the  following  sentences:  “The  Bible  has  lost  all  hold 
on  the  leaders  of  thought  and  certainly  is  destined  before  many  years 
to  become  one  of  the  curiosities  of  the  past.  .  .  .  The  inspiration  of 
those  who  spake  a  ‘Thus  saith  the  Lord’  is  of  only  a  little  higher  type 
than  that  of  the  whirling  dervishes  and  heathen  medicine  men.” 

Mr.  H.  S.  Dulaney,  a  trustee  of  Goucher  College,  in  resigning,  wrote 
“I  am  led  by  my  own  investigations  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Bible 
teaching  in  the  classes  of  Goucher  college  .  .  .  calls  into  question  and 
casts  doubt  upon  the  inspiration,  credibility,  and  integrity  of  the  Bible.” 
— H.  P.  Sloan,  The  New  Infidelity,  37. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


121 


Prof.  H.  T.  Fowler  has  the  chair  of  Biblical  History  and 
Literature  in  Brown  University.  His  Origin  and  Growth  of 
the  Hebrew  Religion  is  a  University  of  Chicago  publication  in 
Religious  Education.  The  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
in  his  opinion  a  tribal  deity,  a  god  with  a  small  “g”  (171) 
in  contrast  to  the  universal  God  whom  Israel  discovered  in 
polytheistic  Babylon.  The  religious  evolution  was  from  “a 
nomad  god  recognized  by  a  small  confederation  of  tribes”  to 
one  with  “the  more  complex  functions  of  the  deity  of  an 
agricultural  nation,”  his  “sphere  of  influence”  having  been 
“transferred  to  the  land  of  Canaan.”  “But  it  required  the 
experience  of  exile,  the  widened  view  of  the  world  below  and 
the  starry  heavens  above,  such  as  came  after  years  of  life  amid 
the  culture  of  ancient  Babylon,  to  bring  to  conscious  expression 
the  definite  doctrine  of  God  as  the  creator  of  all  things.” 
And  Israel  owed  as  much  to  the  idolaters  of  Canaan  as  to 
those  of  Babylon  even  if  the  “the  starry  heavens”  above  Pales¬ 
tine  had  no  lesson  for  them.  “There  was  a  genuine  enrichment 
of  the  Mosaic  religion  from  the  elements  absorbed  [from  Can- 
naanite  religious  practices].  It  was  impossible  for  the  mass 
of  the  people  even  to  come  to  know  the  great  and  awful  Deity 
of  Sinai’s  thunderclouds  .  .  .  except  by  the  road  they  traveled 
of  first  mingling  with  his  worship,  that  of  the  agricultural 
Canaanites. 

“Much  of  the  Canaanite  ritual  was  preserved  in  purified 
form  in  the  religion  of  Israel  and  its  ceremonies  became 
a  mighty  force.  They  played  a  great  part  in  preserving  through 
darkest  days  faith  in  a  God  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in 
the  heavens.”  Ahab  and  Jezebel  then  might  be  conceived  of 
as  supporters  of  Israel’s  faith  as  the  Marcu9  Aurelius  on  the 
Brown  University  campus  that  of  the  Christians  of  Lyons  and 
Vienne.22 

Prof.  Fowler  has  been  chairman  of  a  committee  of  the 
Religious  Education  Association,  one  purpose  of  which  seems 
to  be  to  devise  the  best  means  of  breaking  to  high  school  boys 
the  fact  of  the  impossibility  of  miracles.23 


122 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Amherst  was  founded  with  a  profound  Christian  and  mis¬ 
sionary  purpose.  The  motive  of  the  founders  in  the  dedication 
of  their  gifts  is  said  to  be  “commiseration  for  our  destitute 
brethren”  and  “obedience  to  the  command  of  our  divine  Saviour 
to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.”  The  first  building 
was  dedicated  to  Christ  and  his  Church,  an  allusion,  no  doubt, 
to  the  college  it  was  to  succeed  in  the  Christian  leadership  of 
New  England.  A  Bible  chair  at  Amherst  has  been  filled  in 
late  years  by  one  who  was  at  the  center  of  the  movement 
culminating  in  the  betrayal  of  Andover  to  Harvard  and  who 
declares  that  the  time  has  now  come  for  the  reunion  of  Con¬ 
gregationalism  with  Unitarianism. 

Prof.  Peritz  teaches  the  Bible  in  Syracuse  University  and 
is  prominent  in  the  councils  of  the  R.  E.  A.  His  Old  Testa - 
merit  History  is  a  favorite  textbook  in  college  Bible  courses.  It 
is  dedicated  to  his  teacher,  Prof.  Toy  of  the  Harvard  Divinity 
School.  Prof.  Peritz  thinks  that  “the  uncritical  use  of  the 
Bible  in  taking  everything  just  as  it  stands  has  led  in  a  large 
measure  to  a  distortion  of  God’s  way  in  dealing  with  man.” 
He  will  not  be  guilty  of  this  mistake.  He  tells  us  that  “later 
generations  of  Hebrews,  conscious  of  what  Moses  had  done 
for  them  as  a  nation,  delighted  to  weave  about  him  strange 
happenings  much  as  we  do  about  Washington.”  So,  for  example, 
we  are  to  think  [after  the  manner  of  Dr.  Paulus]  of  Jehovah 
“in  connection  with  a  volcanic  mountain  whose  symbols  were 
the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  terrible 
to  behold  or  approach.”24 

Dr.  W.  J.  Mutch  of  Ripon  College  [Congregational]  active 
in  the  R.  E.  A.,  tells  us  that  “the  religion  of  the  Williams 
College  of  the  days  of  the  historic  haystack  prayer-meeting  or 
of  the  Mt.  Plolyoke  of  Mary  Lyon’s  time”  has  become  extinct. 
It  was  a  type  that  was  “consciously  Christian  without  much 
analysis  of  the  factors  of  its  character.” 25  Dr.  Mutch  does 
not  grieve  over  this  change.  Another  R.  E.  A.  leader,  Prof. 
Votaw  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  looks  for  the  time  when 
the  hold  of  Christian  contributors  on  the  institutions  they 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


123 


founded  shall  be  altogether  a  thing  of  the  past.  In  Religious 
Education ,  1910,  299,  he  says,  “The  American  college  began 
as  an  institution  of  religion.  This  status  is  passing.  Some 
denominational  colleges  have  discontinued  their  ecclesiastical 
connections  and  others  will  do  so  in  the  future  on  the  same  prin¬ 
ciple  that  the  public  schools  are  free  from  church  control.  Our 
educational  institutions  have  the  right  to  self-determination 
when  they  have  achieved  their  majority.  This  will  on  the  whole 
prove  best  for  all  progressive  interests.” 

These  notes  will  perhaps  suffice  to  show  how  generally  the 
Bible  departments  in  church  colleges  have  been  perverted  from 
the  evangelical  wishes  of  their  founders.  The  great  state 
universities  though  owing  much  to  Christian  ministers  [those 
of  Pennsylvania,  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  and  California  were 
founded  by  such]  and  bearing  the  marks  of  Christian  influence 
[the  seal  of  the  University  of  Kansas  being  a  burning  bush 
and  that  of  the  University  of  Indiana  an  open  Bible]  cannot 
in  the  nature  of  the  case  undertake  Christian  instruction.  The 
churches,  therefore,  have  established  outside  their  walls  foun¬ 
dations,  university  pastorates,  and  even  Bible  schools  for  the 
religious  instruction  of  their  studying  youth.  Now  it  is  impor¬ 
tant  that  the  quarter  of  a  million  young  people  in  the  ninety 
higher  state  institutions  of  America  also  receive  a  coat  of  mod¬ 
ernist  paint.  This  is  especially  so  in  view  of  the  benighted 
beliefs  of  the  households  whence  they  come. 

“A  large  proportion  of  the  students  in  tax-supported  universi¬ 
ties,”  wrote  Prof.  C.  F.  Kent  in  1923,  “come  from  homes  where 
the  instruction  in  religion  has  been  of  the  sectarian  and  funda¬ 
mentalist  type.  ...  It  is  not  strange ,  therefore,  that  thousands 
of  these  students  when  they  realize  how  impossible  is  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century  faith  taught  them  in  their  childhood,  make  the 
fatal  mistake  of  discarding  all  religion." 20 

Obviously  this  must  be  remedied.  A  National  Council  of 
Schools  of  Religion  has  been  organized  of  which  Prof.  Kent  was, 
as  of  so  many  of  these  enterprises,  the  leader.  On  its  com¬ 
mittee  appear  most  of  the  ultra-moderns,  Fosdick,  Jenks, 


124 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Merrill,  Willett,  Mathews,  Bade,  Soares,  Barton,  Wild,  Merri- 
field,  Athearn,  Faunce,  Sanders,  Hocking,  Wood,  Cadbury. 
President  Eliot  is  an  active  member  of  the  General  Advisory 
Committee  of  the  Council.  The  Unitarians  have  for  years 
subsidized  Unitarian  churches  at  university  centers.  The  time 
is  come  to  fill  them  with  young  people  from  Christian  homes. 
I  know  of  course  that  the  scheme  is  “non-sectarian”  in  the  old 
sense,  Jews  and  Catholics  being  among  its  incorporators,  but  it 
represents  its  own  special  sectarianism.  We  have,  indeed, 
nothing  else  here  than  a  modernist  drive  at  the  state  uni¬ 
versities. 

In  1921  Kent  was  despatched  to  the  West  to  reconnoitre. 
His  friends  described  him  as  “the  circuit-rider”  of  the  new 
evangelism.  His  mission  was  guided  by  the  Council  of  the 
Church  Boards  of  Education  and  was  thus  given  a  quasi-official 
endorsement  of  the  chief  churches  of  the  country.27  This  did 
not  prevent  his  giving  great  offense  to  the  western  obscurantists, 
as  for  example  when  he  told  them  that  “one  might  as  well  speak 
of  the  wool  of  the  Lamb  as  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.” 

In  1924  the  first  formal  move  was  attempted.  The  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Michigan  was  chosen  as  initial  field  of  operation.  A 
strong  committee  of  Detroit  capitalists  was  organized  [with 
society  patronesses  and  dinners  at  the  Statler  which  would  cer¬ 
tainly  have  amazed  an  old-time  circuit  rider  like  Asbury  with  a 
salary  of  $80  per  annum].  A  drive  for  $1,200,000  was  insti¬ 
tuted.  Prof.  Kent  explained  in  his  promotional  literature  that 
the  moment  had  arrived  when  “if  the  religious  needs  of  our 
present  civilization  can  be  properly  presented,  the  youth  of 
America  can  be  depended  on  to  respond  to  the  call  to  become 
apostles  of  the  faith  first  proclaimed  by  the  prophets  and  sup¬ 
plemented  today  by  the  findings  of  our  great  poets,  clergymen, 
scientists,  and  men  of  action.  ...  A  creed  formulated  when 
everyone  believed  that  the  earth  was  flat  and  that  the  sun  re¬ 
volved  about  the  earth  does  not  satisfy  this  normal  craving. 
Hence  the  wide-spread  revolt  of  youth  against  mediaeval 
theology  and  its  unnatural  vernacular.” 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


1 25 


What  they  really  crave,  he  went  on  to  say,  is  a  faith  which 
embodies  “the  highest  visions  of  truth  and  reality  vouchsafed 
to  the  noblest  prophets  of  the  race  whether  it  be  Confucius, 
or  Buddha,  or  Plato,  or  Isaiah,  or  Jesus.”28 

At  the  date  of  writing  the  Michigan  School  of  Religion  is,  in 
the  words  of  Prof.  Kent’s  co-worker  [Dr.  O.  D.  Foster,  univer¬ 
sity  secretary  of  the  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education], 
in  an  “ethereal  and  embryonic”  stage  “born  in  a  manger  but 
still  struggling  with  its  swaddling  clothes.”29  Dr.  Foster  has 
explained  the  status  desired  for  these  schools.  They  “should 
be  independent  and  yet  affiliated  with  the  university,  perhaps 
through  an  interlocking  directorate.  The  dean  should  be  the 
full  equal  of  the  deans  of  the  university.” 30  “It  is  not  impos¬ 
sible,”  wrote  Prof.  Kent,  “that  many  of  these  schools  of  re¬ 
ligion  will  in  time  be  made  regular  departments  of  the  state 
colleges  or  universities.  Already  plans  are  being  considered  at 
two  or  three  centers  to  make  the  school  of  religion  from  the 
first  a  regular  department  of  the  state  university.”31  Later 
systematic  investigations  of  the  legal  situation  “have  made  it 
clear”  we  are  told  “that  in  most  states  religious  instruction 
can  be  offered  in  the  curriculum  itself.  The  report  published 
as  Bulletin  V  of  the  Council  has  shown  that  a  majority  of  the 
institutional  and  legal  provisions  supposed  to  make  religious 
instruction  impossible  are  directed  against  sectarianism  but  not 
against  religion  itself.”32 

In  other  words,  to  a  state  university  where  no  religious  tests 
can  be  established  a  school  of  religion  is  to  be  attached,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  a  great  established  institution  of  religion.* 

♦“Theoretically  these  institutions  are  not  supposed  to  teach  religion 
and  in  the  main  they  do  not,  but  gradually  courses,  religious  and  semi¬ 
religious,  are  beginning  to  permeate  their  curriculum.” — Bulletin  of  the 
Nat.  Council  on  Religion  and  Higher  Education,  IV,  3. 

It  may  be  asked  why  objection  is  not  raised  against  the  present  rep¬ 
resentation  of  the  churches  at  the  University  as  a  violation  of  the 
American  tradition  of  the  separation  of  church  and  state.  The  answer 
is  obvious.  Their  status  is  wholly  private  and  they  have  been  placed 
there  not  to  conduct  propaganda  but  to  shepherd  the  membership  of  the 
churches  they  represent.  On  the  other  hand  Professor  Kent  distinctly  stated 
the  purpose  of  these  Schools  of  Religion  to  be  propaganda:  “The  main 


126 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


It  is  to  be  directed  by  a  group  of  men  representing  certain  defi¬ 
nite  religious  opinions,  or  as  many  would  think,  anti-religious 
opinions  ;*  it  is  directed  as  Prof.  Kent  has  intimated  in  so  many 
words,  against  the  evangelical  faith  and  for  propaganda  among 
those  who  hold  such  a  faith.  Any  other  religious  organization 
could  hardly  be  established  in  competition  with  it  in  view  of 
its  priority  and  prestige  and  financial  endowment.  It  would 
monopolize  the  ground  and  this  is  no  doubt  intended.  Its  pro¬ 
moters  hope  to  bring  into  it  wherever  possible  all  the  existing 
church  foundations  at  state  universities.33 

According  to  the  Michigan  Alumnus ,  Dec.  20,  J2 3,  “a  work¬ 
ing  arrangement  with  the  Michigan  Agricultural  College  is  also 
planned  to  carry  the  religious  influence  of  the  school  to  remote 
communities  of  the  state  by  development  of  workers  for  their 
social  welfare  in  a  religious  non-sectarian  [read  Unitarian-mod- 
ernist]  way.”  Apparently  instructors  in  religious  education  for 
the  day  schools  of  Michigan  are  also  to  be  trained  in  these 
schools  of  religion.  “The  last  annual  conference  of  the  R.  E.  A. 
was  devoted  to  week-day  religious  education  and  proved  to  be 

objective  in  a  modern  state  school  of  religion  is  to  expose”  [as  to  an 
infection!]  “the  undergraduates  in  the  state  universities  to  courses  in 
religion  that  will  meet  the  vital  needs  of  which  the  majority  are  now 
only  dimly  conscious”  C.E.  April,  1923:354. 

In  Christian  Education  (1924:192)  we  are  told  that  in  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Religious  Education  at  the  University  of  Oklahoma  “the  instruc¬ 
tors  enjoy  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  regular  members  of  the 
faculty.  The  chief  difference  between  them  and  the  other  members  of 
the  faculty  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  churches  nominate  the  professors 
and  provide  their  salaries,  wrhich  pass  through  the  treasury  of  the 
University.  The  scheme  gives  dignity  and  standing  which  could  not 
well  come  in  an  affiliated  or  independent  school.” 

It  would  seem  about  time  to  call  for  injunctions! 

*The  Commission  of  the  Religious  Education  Association  to  investi¬ 
gate  the  preparation  of  religious  leaders  in  universities  and  colleges 
issued  a  report  (R.E.  Vol.  7:338)  signed  by  Drs.  Fosdick,  Starbuck, 
Doggett  and  others.  This  quotes  the  president  of  one  of  our  most 
dignified  universities  “wTho  prefers  not  to  have  his  name  quoted.”  “The 
time  is,  I  believe,  at  hand  when  all  intelligent  Protestant  bodies  must 
accept  the  new  and  higher  criticism  which  makes  the  Bible  glow  with 
a  new  light.  They  must  also  accept  the  psychology  of  religion  which 
begins  with  nature  worship  .  .  .  and  works  up  to  the  worship  of  human¬ 
ity.  . .  .  This  sort  of  thing  my  own  experience  with  students  convinces  me 
they  want  more  than  anything  else  and  cramming  with  dogmas  and 
ecclesiastical  attitudes  repels  the  natural  mind.” 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


127 


a  time  of  great  enthusiasm  for  the  cause.  The  question  of 
providing  for  the  college  training  of  instructors  in  this  field 
was  faced  frankly  and  intelligently.,, 

The  inimitable  Dr.  Foster  tells  us  in  speaking  of  these  schools 
of  religion  that  “the  New  Jerusalem  has  not  gotten  out  of  the 
clouds  though  glimpses  of  it  are  being  had  here  and  there.”34 
These  glimpses  reveal  Rockefeller  money  set  apart  for  develop¬ 
ing  leaders  for  the  schools.  Twenty-four  holders  of  fellowships 
are  in  training  chiefly  at  the  Harvard,  Union,  and  University 
of  Chicago  divinity  schools.  The  administrators  of  this  fund 
are  H.  E.  Fosdick,  C.  F.  Kent  and  H.  W.  Rogers.  At  the 
University  of  Michigan  itself  $300,000  endowment  has  already 
been  secured  and  a  special  fund  of  $25,000  yearly  for  three 
years  subscribed  to  launch  the  project.  The  first  two  lecturers 
under  its  auspices  are  Prof.  Lake,  a  thorough-paced  sceptic  from 
the  Harvard  Theological  School,  and  Prof.  Case  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Chicago,  who  would  run  him  a  close  second.  The 
courses  count  for  degrees  as  any  other  in  the  university.  The 
names  on  the  commission  to  select  libraries  for  these  schools 
reveal  the  thoroughly  partisan  character  of  the  movement.35 

The  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of  Education  has  taken 
the  lead  in  organizing  Schools  of  Religion  as  well  as  an  Asso¬ 
ciation  of  Schools  of  Religion.*  The  Council  is  supported  by 
subsidies  from  the  denominational  educational  boards.f  “It 
brings  into  co-operative  relation,”  wrote  Prof.  Kent  (Scribners, 
March,  ’23),  “the  educational  resources  of  twenty  leading 
Protestant  denominations  [and  is]  a  potent  constructive  force 

*“The  guidance  of  the  growth  of  the  schools  of  religion  has  been  for 
many  years  one  of  the  greatest  challenges  of  our  Council.  .  .  .  We  are 
being  looked  to  more  and  more  as  the  central  bureau  for  Protestant 
schools  of  religious  instruction.  Patience  and  perseverance  will  see  won¬ 
ders  done  here  during  the  next  decade.”  C.E.,  Jan.  1925:144. 

fThe  Baptist  educational  secretary,  Dr.  Padclford,  recommends  a 
foundation  to  finance  this  Council.  He  sees  “tremendous  possibilities” 
in  the  Kentian  Schools  of  Religion  at  state  universities.  C.E.,  1923:336. 
Wiser  is  the  judgment  of  an  unnamed  college  president  on  the  Bible 
teaching  in  colleges,  “I  believe  that  much  teaching  is  today  not  only 
a  failure  to  do  what  needs  to  be  done  but  is  an  assault  on  the  essentials 
of  Christian  faith.”  C.E.,  1922:146. 


128 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


through  the  educational  institutions  for  training  the  church 
leaders  of  the  future.”  The  public  knows  little  of  it.  “Its 
work  has  been  steady  and  quiet,”  says  Mr.  Micou,  its  president, 
“without  much  publicity.”  Prof.  Kent  has  been  co-editor  of 
its  organ,  Christian  Education.  Dr.  R.  L.  Kelly,  the  secretary 
of  the  Council,  is  active  in  the  Religious  Education  Association 
and  has  lately  served  on  its  committee  of  five  to  formulate 
constitutional  modifications.  Other  important  positions  held  by 
him  are  membership  in  the  Administrative  Committee  of  the 
Federal  Council  of  Churches  and  chairmanship  of  the  sub-coni' 
mittee  on  student  work  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  of  the  Y.  W. 
C.  A.  Commission  on  the  Approach  to  the  Churches.  These 
relationships  give  him  the  confidence  of  wealthy  Christians. 
“More  and  more  information  and  recommendations  are  sought,” 
he  writes,  “by  foundations  and  philanthropists  who  wish  to  con¬ 
fer  financial  benefits  to  institutions.  During  the  year  the  Coun¬ 
cil  has  responded  to  requests  for  information  of  this  sort  con¬ 
cerning  no  less  than  fifty  colleges  and  seminaries  and  we  have 
been  assured  that  many  of  these  institutions  have  been  listed 
for  financial  benefits  either  in  the  form  of  gifts  or  inclusion  in 
wills.”36 

This  Council  serves  as  a  liaison,  more  or  less  definite,  between 
the  Religious  Education  Association  and  the  evangelical 
churches.*  It  is  working  out  with  the  R.  E.  A.  courses  in 
religious  education  for  “colleges  upon  religious  foundations.” 
The  R.  E.  A.  has  further  drawn  up  a  memorial  on  Bible  as 
a  college  entrance  credit  to  be  presented  to  college  and  univer¬ 
sity  authorities  jointly  by  the  R.  E.  A.  and  the  Council  of  the 
Church  Boards  of  Education.  The  Council  has  also  set  “a 

*Dr.  Cavert,  Sec’y  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  writes  in 
The  Teaching  Work  of  the  Church,  224:  “In  any  educational  council 
of  the  Protestant  churches  the  Religious  Education  Association  ought 
to  have  representation  at  least  as  an  advisory  body  so  that  its  facilities 
for  research  and  for  wider  discussion  may  be  more  fully  utilized  by 
the  churches.  If  some  way  could  be  found  for  bringing  the  offices  of 
the  Religious  Education  Association  and  the  central  offices  of  the  needed 
educational  council  of  the  churches  into  close  physical  proximity  .  .  . 
it  would  be  a  most  advantageous  arrangement.” 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


129 


commission  to  define  a  unit  for  secondary  schools.”  Prof.  Wild 
of  Mt.  Holyoke  and  Prof.  Willett  of  the  University  of  Chicago 
[with  the  late  Prof.  Kent]  are  on  this  commission  and  Dr. 
Kelly  is  its  chairman. 

That  the  Religious  Education  Association  with  its  Jews  and 
Unitarians,  its  Leubas  and  Starbucks,*  should  actually  be  en¬ 
gaged  in  drawing  up  a  religious-educational  scheme  for  the 
Christian  institutions  of  the  country  is  perhaps  the  last  word 
in  effrontery.  Yet  this  is  the  case  and  its  department  of  uni¬ 
versities  and  colleges  of  which  the  free-thinker  Prof.  Starbuck 
has  been  executive  secretary  has  a  committee  for  the  standardiza¬ 
tion  of  college  and  university  biblical  departments  which  has 
been  at  work  seven  years  and  has  classified  about  three  hundred 
of  the  colleges.  And  the  official  representative  of  the  evan¬ 
gelical  churches  [the  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of  Educa¬ 
tion]  is  co-operating.  “More  and  more,”  says  President  Micou, 
“it  is  appearing  that  our  chief  task  is  to  unify  all  the  religious 
educational  forces  at  work  in  normal  schools,  universities,  pro¬ 
fessional  schools,  and  theological  seminaries.”  “The  serious 
attempt  to  standardize  such  departments  has  begun,”  writes  Dr. 
Kelly.  This  is  naturally  awakening  protest.  “The  complaint,” 
he  continues,  “is  sometimes  made  that  the  modern  teacher  of 
the  Bible  ‘upsets’  his  students;  that  his  teaching  tends  to  unsettle 
the  faith  of  their  childhood.  .  .  .  Prof.  Wood  of  Smith  answers 
that  the  happier  conception  of  religion  which  it  is  the  business 
of  the  biblical  departments  to  develop  is  far  more  frequent 
among  students  than  it  was  a  few  years  ago.”37 

“Out  of  these  centres  [the  universities]  will  come  a  new  inter¬ 
pretation  of  life  and  religion,”  says  Dr.  Foster,  Secretary  of  the 

*Prof.  Starbuck  in  his  Psychology  of  Religion  takes  the  super  out  of 
the  supernatural  in  Christian  experience.  “The  facts  of  conversion  are 
manifestations  of  natural  processes,”  143.  “The  religious  experience 
known  in  theological  terms  as  sanctification  lends  itself  readily  to  psy¬ 
chological  analysis,”  375.  “The  central  thing  underlying  all  these  phe¬ 
nomena  [conversion]  seems  to  be  the  birth  of  the  reproductive  life,” 
147.  Conversion  is  compared  to  overcoming  dislike  to  onions  or  ba¬ 
nanas.  Diagrams  are  given  on  page  84  representing  the  “feelings  at 
the  time  of  conversion,” — circles  with  segments  of  circles  and  lettering, 
imposing  constructions- 


130 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Council.  “The  church  teachings  cannot  be  cast  into  the  mould 
of  antiquated  ecclesiastical  dogma  and  command  respect.  They 
must  undergo  the  most  thorough-going  criticism  and  be  brought 
before  the  bar  of  reason  to  answer  for  themselves.  .  .  .  The 
university  provides  with  its  scientific  method.  .  .  comparative 
freedom  from  religious  bias.  Adequately  equipped  union  schools 
of  religion  at  the  great  universities  should  be  in  a  most  favorable 
position  to  give  to  the  world  what  it  has  never  really  enjoyed — 
a  scientific  theology.  .  .  .  All  these  needs  cannot  be  met  without 
great  sums  of  money.  It  is  a  most  solemn  fact  that  unless  the 
church  expects  to  bid  adieu  to  a  large  percentage  of  her  most 
promising  young  people  she  must  meet  this  challenge.”  Christian 
Education  ( 1921 ) ,  the  Kent-Kelly-Foster  organ,  counts  up  with 
delight  the  gigantic  sums  in  process  of  extraction  from  the  Chris¬ 
tian  public  for  allegedly  Christian  education.  It  totals  two  hun¬ 
dred  and  forty  millions  of  which  seventeen  millions  are  for 
theological  seminaries .*  “To  succeed,”  continues  Dr.  Foster, 
“the  proposed  schools  of  religion  must  have  a  recognized  agency 
to  foster  them  [presumably  the  Council  of  which  he  is  the 
secretary]  .  .  .  assurance  of  donors  .  .  .  and  security  from 
unnecessary  sectarian  attacks.”38 

There  is  the  scheme  in  a  nutshell.  The  money  for  these 
enterprises  at  the  universities  and  elsewhere  which  the  Religious 
Education  Association  and  the  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of 
Education  are  so  interested  in,  is  to  be  given  by  the  churches 
and  those  who  give  it  are  to  be  forbidden  to  criticize  the  wildly 
rationalistic  religion  which  is  to  be  injected  into  the  studying 
youth  of  the  churches. 

Dr.  Foster  is  also  related  to  the  recently  established  inter¬ 
denominational  university  pastorates.  “No  chart  or  charter  for 
anything  of  this  kind  existed,”  we  are  told.  “Without  any  code 

*These  people  are  materialists  to  the  fingertips.  “We  used  to  hear 
it  said,”  remarks  a  prominent  leader  in  the  Religious  Education  Asso¬ 
ciation,  “that  the  best  thermometer  of  the  church’s  spirituality  is  the 
prayer-meeting.  We  do  not  hear  this  saying  any  longer.”  The  test 
suggested  to  take  its  place  is  the  amount  of  money  devoted  to  religious 
education  by  the  church. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


131 


except  personal  confidence  and  a  fraternal  spirit,  Baptist,  Con¬ 
gregational,  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  and  Disciple  official 
moneys  have  been  pooled  in  a  common  purse  and  the  state 
agricultural  schools  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Ohio,  Michigan,  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  California,  Montana, 
and  Idaho  have  been  provided  with  pastorates.”39  Secretary  W. 
F.  Sheldon  of  the  Methodist  Board  thinks  that  pastors  to  fill 
these  positions  should  be  chosen  by  representatives  of  the  educa¬ 
tional  boards  and  of  local  interests  under  the  guidance  of  the 
University  Committee  of  the  Council  of  the  Church  Boards  of 
Education  of  which  the  very  aufgeklaert  Dr.  Foster  is  secre¬ 
tary.40 

During  the  past  twenty  years  conference  centers  for  college 
young  people  have  been  established  at  Silver  Bay,  Estes  Park, 
Asilomar,  Geneva,  Blue  Ridge,  and  Seabec  to  strengthen  the 
Christian  life  with  Bible  study.  The  Council  of  the  Church 
Boards  of  Education  has  apparently  been  given  a  certain  leader¬ 
ship  in  these  conferences.  The  deans  of  the  men’s  conferences 
receive  their  appointment  at  the  hand  of  the  Council.  Of  the 
women’s  conferences  Dr.  Foster  says,  “If  the  way  opens  for  me 
to  get  into  one  or  more  of  these  conferences  in  a  vital  way  I 
shall  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  after  which  we  may  be 
in  a  position  to  recommend  something  more  definite  another 
year.  In  time  we  shall  arrive  at  more  satisfactory  relation¬ 
ships.”41  In  one  year  2,163  students  have  attended  these  con¬ 
ferences,  604  coming  from  foreign  countries.* 

The  literature  which  has  been  poured  into  the  market  by 
religious  educationists  is  ordinarily  marked  by  an  uninspiring 
dullness.  In  reading  it  one  is  too  often  reminded  of  Artemus 
Ward’s  old  jibe  about  selling  “Punch”  by  the  pound.  One 
wonders,  for  example,  of  many  of  these  publications  of  the 

*The  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education  has  drawn  up  24 
recommendations  for  the  conduct  of  these  conferences.  No.  19  urges 
“that  serious  attention  be  given  to  the  presentation  of  Christian  funda¬ 
mentals  in  a  manner  consistent  with  modern  scholarship  and  learning.’ ’ 
No.  22  “that  the  two  representatives  appointed  by  the  Council  of  Church 
Boards  of  Education  be  members  of  the  committee  which  builds  the 
program  of  the  conference.  One  of  these  should  he  as  far  as  practicable 


132 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


University  of  Chicago  if  they  would  ever  see  the  light  of  day 
save  for  the  kindly  offices  of  a  non-commercial  press.  The 
Religious  Education  Association  and  its  related  organizations 
are  active  in  commending  to  a  reluctant  market  the  literature  of 
its  members. 

A  commission  has  prepared  two  lists  of  “the  most  impor¬ 
tant  books  in  the  field  of  religion,”  one  of  500  volumes 
for  smaller  universities,  colleges  and  Y.  M.  C.  A/s;  the  other 
of  1,500  for  schools  of  religion  and  larger  colleges.*  For  sec¬ 
ondary  schools  we  are  told  that  the  library  should  have  at  least 
fifteen  of  the  following,  Buck’s  Life  of  Jesus  (Unitarian), 
Peake’s  New  Century  Bible ,  Soares’  Heroes  of  Israel  and  the 
works  of  Sanders,  Mathews,  Willett,  Gilbert,  and  Kent.  A 
report  on  Standardization  of  Biblical  Departments  in  Colleges 
by  Profs.  Kent,  Sanders  and  Wild  issues  a  list  of  250  books 
authorized  (!)  by  the  Association  of  Bible  Teachers  in  Col¬ 
leges.42  It  is  standardized  along  the  same  line  of  authorship. 
A  graded  course  in  the  life  of  Jesus  commends  for  children 
from  twelve  to  fourteen — Lives  of  Jesus  by  Gates  and  Forbush ; 
for  those  between  fourteen  and  eighteen,  Lives  by  Burgess  and 

the  university  secretary  of  the  Council,”  i.  e.,  Dr.  O.  D.  Foster!  A 
similar  series  of  recommendations  is  to  be  worked  out  in  the  Y.  W.  C.  A. 
C.E.  1921:8,  9. 

^President  Micou  says  of  the  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education: 
“We  have  now  a  group  of  three  women  students  who  can  act  as  liaison 
officers  in  dealing  with  the  national  boards  of  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.  as  our 
various  university  secretaries  have  been  for  some  years  dealing  with 
the  International  Committee  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.”  C.E.  ’22:9. 

Northfield  has  caught  the  infection  and  the  Northfield  School  of 
Sunday  school  Methods  has  changed  its  name  to  the  Northfield  School 
of  Religious  Education  with  a  modernist,  Dr.  N.  E.  Richardson,  in 
charge.  The  Unitarian  religious  education  leader,  Dr.  W.  I.  Lawrence, 
in  commenting  on  this  “transfer  of  emphasis”  says,  “The  theme  for  it3 
next  session  is  Religious  Education  and  Reconstruction  and  its  aim  is 
to  present  the  great  call  of  the  reconstruction  task.  Here  is  religion 
attempting  to  function  not  in  mere  religion  but  in  better  society.”  R.E. 
Vol.  14:190  and  C.R.  1919:492. 

The  churches  too  are  to  serve  as  outlets  for  this  literature.  “Every 
church  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  provide  the  necessary  tools  for 
its  workers  in  religious  education  and  hence  to  maintain  a  library  of 
the  most  useful  books  on  the  subject  [Kent,  Wild,  Coe,  Betts,  Peabody 
are  named].  The  school  should  hold  at  least  one  membership  in  the 
Religious  Education  Association  ($4  yearly).”  R.E.,  Vol.  15:53. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


133 


Bosworth;  over  eighteen  the  writings  of  Burton,  Mathews, 
Jenks,  and  Kent’s  Life  and  Teachings  of  Jesus ,43 

A  Declaration  of  Principles  of  Religious  Education  prepared 
by  Messrs.  Sanders,  Kent,  Votaw,  Coe,  Soares,  and  others 
“presses  on  the  conscience  of  the  church  that  missionary 
societies,  theological  seminaries,  and  training  schools  for 
missionaries  unite  to  provide  expert  leaders  in  religious  edu¬ 
cation  for  mission  service  and  that  schools  for  the  training  of 
lay  workers  in  religious  education  be  established  in  all  parts  of 
the  country.”44 

Dr.  Sanders,  an  old-time  Wellhausen  popularizer,  is  sec¬ 
retary  of  the  Board  of  Missionary  Preparation,  which  is 
supported  jointly  by  the  chief  foreign  mission  boards  and 
has  its  function,  apparently,  to  provide  a  sort  of  finishing 
course  to  those  who  are  starting  to  the  foreign  field.  In  1924 
a  Joint  Advisory  Committee  on  Methods  and  Materials  for 
Religious  Education  on  the  Foreign  Field  was  established  with 
Prof.  Luther  Weigle  as  chairman.  [Prof.  Weigle,  with  Prof. 
Starbuck,  is  mentioned  in  the  1917  report  of  the  American 
Unitarian  Association  as  preparing  a  series  of  textbooks  for 
Unitarian  Sunday  schools.]  This  committee  is  to  provide  a 
single  centre  from  which  to  make  available  to  Sunday  school 
associations,  curriculum  committees,  lesson  writers,  and  other 
workers  in  religious  education  in  foreign  lands,  the  experience 
gained  in  the  development  of  religious  education  in  the  United 
States. 

To  attempt  to  follow  all  the  plans  for  training  Religious 
Education  leaders  and  teachers  would  carry  us  far  afield.  A 
new  profession  we  are  told  has  been  brought  into  being.  Direc¬ 
tors  of  Religious  Education  are  being  appointed  by  the  churches 
to  have  full  charge  of  Sunday  school  and  Christian  En¬ 
deavor. 

“These  are  not  assistant  pastors  but  expert  advisors  and  execu¬ 
tive  heads  of  the  department  of  Religious  Education.”  Groups 
of  churches  are  invited  to  unite  in  hiring  one  of  these  new  offi¬ 
cials  in  case  they  cannot  finance  him  alone. 


134 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Then  there  are  to  be  directors  of  week-day  and  vacation 
schools  of  religion,  field  directors  of  religious  education  for 
Christian  Associations,  educational  superintendents  for  denomi¬ 
national  boards,  professors  of  religious  education  in  church  col¬ 
leges,  directors  of  community  schools  for  religious  education, 
educational  and  evangelistic  leaders  in  foreign  mission  fields — a 
whole  hierarchy  of  office  holders  and  supernumeraries  to  “eat  the 
church,”  to  use  the  Chinese  expression.  One  thinks  of  the 
multitudinous  “workers”  of  the  mediaeval  church — brown 
friars,  black  friars,  white  friars,  gray  friars.  Follow  a  proces¬ 
sion  o'f  Americanization  workers,  settlement  workers,  directors 
of  forums,  story  tellers,  women  trained  in  the  fundamentals  of 
social  engineering,  workers  to  transform  the  rural  school  and 
church  into  centers  of  community  welfare.  “During  the  past 
two  decades  there  has  developed  a  well-defined  body  of  knowl¬ 
edge  regarding  the  development  of  religion  in  children  and 
adults  and  of  pedagogical  methods  of  teaching  religion  [I  am 
quoting  from  the  Bulletin  of  the  School  of  Religious  Education 
in  Boston  University ,  47].*  A  very  definite  technique  is  being 
formulated — scales,  score-cards,  and  standards  of  measurement 
for  measuring  the  processes  of  religious  growth.  Already  liter¬ 
ally  thousands  of  persons  are  employed  as  experts  in  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  this  specialized  knowledge  to  the  spiritual  needs  of 
human  beings.  Almost  without  our  knowledge  a  new  profession 
equipped  with  all  the  elements  necessary  for  professional  service 

*Prof.  F.  L.  Strickland  gives  courses  in  the  Foreign  Mission  depart¬ 
ment  of  the  Boston  University  School  of  Religion.  In  his  book,  " The 
Foundations  of  Christian  Belief,”  he  says  (196):  “It  is  not  very  long 
since  the  opinion  prevailed  among  intelligent  Christian  people  that  the 
non-Christian  religions  are  altogether  false  and  unworthy  of  any  con¬ 
sideration.  The  religions  of  the  world  were  confidently  divided  into 
two  classes, — the  true  religions,  which  included  Judaism  and  Christi¬ 
anity  and  the  false  religions,  which  included  all  others.  But  this  dubious 
and  provincial  way  of  thinking  about  God’s  relation  to  the  greater  part 
of  the  human  race  began  to  undergo  transformation  when  the  great 
non-Christian  religions  became  better  known.”  Prof.  Strickland  has 
no  old  wives’  notions  about  prayer.  He  says  on  234:  “Religious  books 
written  by  pious  people  .  .  .  filled  with  a  lot  of  anecdotes  of  miracu¬ 
lous  answers  to  prayer  [may  be]  of  some  interest  and  cause  us  to  won¬ 
der  as  we  read  them,  but  they  are  not  convincing.”  This  is  a  textbook 
used  in  the  school. 


The  Religious  Education  'Association 


135 


has  sprung  Minerva-like  into  existence.  The  new  profession 
is  here.  The  question  is  shall  the  graduate  schools  of  the  land 
standardize  this  new  profession  and  make  its  practice  safe  and 
trustworthy?” 

All  these  “workers”  are  being  duly  tinctured  with  Kent  and 
Sanders  and  Shailer  Mathews,  as  a  glance  at  the  reserved  shelves 
of  the  Boston  University  School  of  Religious  Education  shows. 
And  they  are  going  to  carry  their  modified  and  modernized 
Gospel  to  the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth.  “The  period  of 
world  reconstruction  is  calling  for  foreign  missionary  leader¬ 
ship  such  as  no  previous  age  has  witnessed.  The  newly  democ¬ 
ratized  nations  of  the  world  are  demanding  Christian  teachers, 
preachers,  and  social  workers  more  rapidly  than  they  can  be 
adequately  trained.  Methodist  boards  are  asking  for  six  hun¬ 
dred  new  missionaries  each  year.  ...  If  the  church  is 
to  build  up  a  system  of  religious  education  which  will 
spiritualize  the  ideals  of  democratic  world-society  there  must 
be  raised  up  a  vast  army  of  religious  teachers,  administrators, 
and  editors. 

Nor  is  this  all.  “It  is  the  profound  conviction  of  this  school 
that  the  church  must  again  become  the  mother  of  artists  and 
the  generous  patron  of  their  works.  As  a  contribution  toward 
the  preparation  of  leadership  in  this  important  field  an  unusual 
group  of  outstanding  artists  has  been  assembled  as  a  permanent 
faculty  for  a  distinct  department  of  fine  arts  in  religion.”  An 
American  Pageant  Association  has  been  founded  in  Boston. 
“Workers”  in  this  department  are  offered  a  course  in  the  evolu¬ 
tion  of  the  drama,  expounding  its  laws  as  formulated  by  Lope 
de  Vega,  Racine,  Lessing,  Goethe,  Brunetiere,  Shaw,  and  Archer. 
A  course  in  the  technique  of  pageant  accompanies  it  with  instruc¬ 
tion  in  the  making  of  hats  and  properties  and  simple  background 
together  with  the  writing  of  plays  and  pageants,  adapted  to 
church  or  social  “work.”  The  bulletin  tells  us  that  “students 
must  not  allow  their  evangelistic  fervor  to  wane  while  they  are 
acquiring  vocational  technique.”  They  are  to  keep  themselves 
“God-intoxicated !”  as  if  that  would  be  possible  to  the  most 


136  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

k 

experienced  mystic  in  such  an  atmosphere  of  spiritual  disper¬ 
sion.*45 

Nor  are  pre-college  maidens  to  be  forgotten.  A  committee 
of  the  National  Association  of  Bible  Instructors  in  American 
Colleges  is  studying  with  the  Headmistresses  Association  the 
problems  of  biblical  and  religious  education  at  the  girls’  prepara¬ 
tory  and  finishing  schools.  A  modernist  heads  the  education  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Boy  Scouts.  Reading  courses  for  ministers  have 
been  laid  out;  city  Bible  institutes  [as  in  Providence  and  New 
Haven]  instituted  with  Profs.  Kent,  Sanders,  Bacon,  Moore, 
Tyson  and  others  lecturing.  The  religious  week-day  teaching 
in  public  schools  is  to  be  pre-empted  and  one  thinks  of  religious 
educationists  waiting  on  its  emergence  as  cutworms  on  garden 
greens.f 

Yet  they  are  not  indeed  waiting  idly.  The  state  normal 
schools  have  not  been  neglected.  In  Religious  Education  (Vol. 
11 :  p.  110)  is  a  paper  by  Prof.  G.  A.  Coe,  entitled  “A  General 
View  of  the  Movement  for  Correlating  Religious  Education 
with  Public  Instruction.”  From  it  one  learns  that  the  State 
Normal  School  of  Greeley,  Colorado,  has  been  inveigled  into 
giving  credit  for  the  study  of  Kent’s  Historical  Bible  and  other 
modernist  literature.  “Here  evidently  the  methods  and  the 
products  of  scholarly  study  are  frankly  assumed.”  Consequently 

^President  Micou  of  the  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education 
says:  “The  church  is  being  won  rapidly  to  dramatics  and  pageantry.” 
C.E.,  ’22:179.  Again  in  speaking  of  the  university  pastors,  after  explain¬ 
ing  that  they  have  to  meet  the  opposition  of  the  local  pastors  to  their 
“high-grade  religious  education”  he  says:  “The  fact  that  the  local  com¬ 
mittee  does  not  permit  student  pastors  to  have  dancing  makes  the  cleav¬ 
age  very  great.”  C.E.,  1922:7. 

fWhat  is  in  store  for  the  children  in  the  public  school  comes  out 
in  some  sentences  of  Prof.  J.  M.  Artman  of  the  Department  of  Religious 
Education  in  the  University  of  Chicago  which  appear  in  Cope’s  Week¬ 
day  Religious  Education.  “The  methods  of  Jesus,  of  Paul,  of  Moses,  of 
Mahomet  (!)  are  to  be  studied  with  open  minds.  All  those  using  the 
Bible  as  the  text  either  as  literature  or  for  -purposes  of  dogmatic  doc¬ 
trinal  teaching  miss  entirely  the  scientific  method.  The  only  foundation 
for  a  course  in  religious  education  is  life  itself.”  103-4.  “It  would  seem 
wise  to  utilize  all  the  great  Bibles,  all  literatures,  all  histories,  the  arts 
and  sciences,  because  science  certainly  has  given  us  great  help  in  liv¬ 
ing,”  110. 


The  Religious  Education  Association 


137 


“the  Sunday-schools”  where  the  normal-trained  teachers  will 
perhaps  teach  on  their  rest  day  will  be  stimulated  to  take  up 
in  earnest  their  own  proper  task  of  producing  understanding, 
appreciation,  and  character.”  Prof.  Coe  disapproves  of  the 
North  Dakota  plan,  “which  aims,  directly  at  least,  at  nothing 
but  a  certain  degree  of  intelligence  concerning  the  Bible”  (115) 
whereas  “the  controlling  conception  in  Colorado  is  the  religious 
needs  of  the  high  school  pupils.”  “How  many  Sunday-schools 
will  use  this  [North  Dakota]  non-historical  syllabus  ...  as 
an  opportunity  to  keep  alive  anti-critical  interpretations  of  the 
Bible  and  merely  traditional  conceptions  of  piety,”  114.  The 
sectarian  purposes  of  Religion  Educationists  in  public  institu¬ 
tions  are  clearly  enough  indicated  in  these  words. 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  V 

1.  C.R.  1912:282.  2.  C.R.  1913:306.  3.  R.E.  Vol.  8:61.  4.  R.E.  Vol.  3:74. 
S.  R.E.  Vol.  4:582.  6.  R.E.  1919:322.  7.  Bible  Champion,  1923:402.  8.  R.E. 

1909  iv  June.  9.  C.E.  1923:403.  10.  Kent,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus,  309,  299, 

104,  105,  236,  107,  30,  271,  222,  282,  236,  290,  49,  50,  54,  315,  297,  247, 

11.  R.E.  8:455.  12.  C.R.  1915:740.  13.  Wild,  A  Present-Day  Definition  of 

Christianity,  42,  11,  12,  34,  37,  39,  40,  55,  53,  37.  The  Evolution  of  the  Hebrew 
People,  46,  178,  131.  A  Literary  Guide  to  the  Bible,  8.  14.  Charlotte  H. 

Conant,  Address  in  Memory  of  H.  F.  Durant.  15.  R.E.  Vol.  12:325,  329. 
16.  R.E.  Vol.  7:106.  17.  R.E.  Vol.  11:483.  18.  Inauguration  of  Bryn  Mawr 
College,  17.  19.  Barton,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  358,  210,  212,  304,  292-4,  298,  354. 

20.  Leuba,  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality,  279,  277,  280,  205.  21.  Vassar  by 

J.  M.  Taylor,  26.  22.  Fowler,  Origin  and  Grozuth  of  the  Hebrew  Religion, 

171,  471,  132,  44,  45.  23.  R.E.  Vol.  11:68.  24.  Peritz,  Old  Testament  History, 
15,  67,  88.  25.  Journal  of  Religion,  May,  1923.  26.  C.E.  1923:351.  27.  C.E. 

1922:8,  17;  1923:350;  1922:17,  8;  1924:178.  Bulletin  of  Natl.  Council  of 
Schools  of  Religion  1:5.  28.  Bulletin  Natl.  Council  of  Schools  of  Religion  II: 

12,  13.  29.  C.E.  1922:20 2.  30.  C.E.  1922:202.  31.  Bulletin  of  Natl.  Council 

of  Schools  of  Religion  11:9.  32.  1924  Yearbook  of  Natl.  Council  of  Schools 

of  Religion  in  Higher  Education,  3.  33.  C.E.  1924:178.  34.  C.E.  1922:20 2. 

35.  Yearbook  of  N.  C.  R.  H.  E.  1924:8,  14.  36.  C.E.  1923:233.  37.  C.E. 

1922:4,  22,  25.  38.  C.E.  1921:63,  66,  67,  23,  25.  39.  C.E.  1923:254.  40.  C.E. 

1923:262-3.  41.  C.E.  1923:243-4.  42.  R.E.  12:146.  43.  R.E.  Vol.  8:513. 

44.  R.E.  Vol.  7:119.  45.  The  School  of  Religious  Education,  Boston  Univ., 

July,  1923,  47,  12,  11,  20,  88,  10. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  LOOTING  OF  ANDOVER 


He  was  a  Unitarian  and  meant  to  assist  in  the  teaching 
of  his  own  faith  and  not  another.  And  we  know  of  no 
school  either  of  theology  or  of  jurisprudence  in  which  these 
two  systems  of  faith  were  ever  considered  essentially  the 
same.  From  the  early  days  of  Christianity  they  have  always 
been  deemed,  as  they  have  been  in  our  day,  antagonistic 
systems. — Princeton  vs.  Adams. 

Where  money  was  left  to  support  “Christ’s  Holy  Gospel” 
the  court  held  that  no  Unitarian  could  partake  of  her 
bounty. — Attorney-General  vs.  Shore. 


"^HE  march  of  theological  liberalism  is  ordinarily  accom¬ 
panied  by  more  or  less  pillaging.  The  looting  of 
Andover  will  always  be  a  classic  example.  Dr.  H.  M. 
Dexter,  the  historian  of  New  England  Congregationalism,  said 
of  the  breach  of  trust  in  the  case  of  the  five  professors,  “It  out- 
sizes  anything  else  of  the  sort  in  the  annals  of  a  by  no  means 
unspotted  century,”1  and  certainly  the  scandal  has  not  grown 
less  as  the  years  have  passed.  Andover  Seminary  at  the  start 
was  founded  because  of  violation  of  trust.*  The  Hollis  pro¬ 
fessorship  at  Harvard  trained  the  Congregational  ministers  of 
New  England  before  the  Unitarians  seized  it.  It  was  a  foun¬ 
dation  of  Thomas  Hollis,  an  English  Calvinist  Baptist,  who 
stipulated  that  the  man  chosen  to  fill  the  chair  should  be  of 
“sound  and  orthodox  principles.”  In  1747  additional  funds 


*“01d  foundations  established  by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  for  the  perpetu¬ 
ation  and  teaching  of  their  views  in  theology  were  seized  upon  and 
appropriated  to  the  support  of  opposing  views.  A  fund  given  for 
preaching  an  annual  lecture  on  the  Trinity  was  employed  for  preaching 
an  annual  attack  upon  it  and  the  Hollis  Professorship  of  Divinity  at 
Cambridge  was  employed  for  the  furnishing  of  a  class  of  ministers 
whose  sole  distinctive  idea  was  declared  warfare  with  the  ideas  and 
intentions  of  the  donor.” — Mrs.  H.  B.  Stowe  in  Autobiography  of  Lyman 
Beecher,  Vol.  2,  110. 


138 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


139 


were  given,  also  with  the  stipulation  that  the  person  occupying 
it  should  “profess  and  teach  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion  according  to  the  well-known  confession  of  faith  drawn 
up  by  the  synod  of  the  churches  of  New  England.”2  This  was 
of  course  never  done  after  the  Unitarian  Henry  Ware  was  (in 
1805)  seated  in  the  professorship. 

The  Phillipses  in  establishing  the  famous  academies  at 
Andover  and  Exeter  made,  as  far  back  as  1778,  certain  pro¬ 
visions  for  the  theological  education  of  their  graduates  at  the 
Andover  Academy.  It  was  natural,  then,  that  the  evangelical 
Congregationalists  ousted  from  Harvard,  should  turn  to  this 
embryo  theological  department,  the  more  so  as  the  legislature 
having  Unitarian  sympathies  was  not,  in  their  opinion,  likely  to 
favor  the  granting  of  a  charter  to  an  orthodox  theological  semi¬ 
nary.3  [The  opposition  made  to  a  charter  for  Amherst  and  the 
bitter  propaganda  centering  at  Harvard  against  that  “priest 
factory”  make  this  understandable.]4  Samuel  Abbott,  a 
wealthy  retired  merchant  of  Boston,  revoked  a  bequest  of 
$20,000  to  Harvard  because  of  its  defection  from  Puritanism 
and  turned  the  money  over  to  Andover.5  In  his  will  he  insisted 
that  every  person  elected  to  be  professor  should  make  a  solemn 
declaration  of  his  faith  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  and  “if  at  any  future  time,  which  may 
God  forbid,  the  trustees  of  said  academy  should  become  so 
regardless  of  these  my  regulations  and  of  my  true  object  in 
them  as  to  choose  or  continue  in  office  a  professor  whose  prin¬ 
ciples  in  divinity  shall  not  be  sound  and  orthodox  in  the  sense 
aforesaid  or  shall  not  make,  subscribe,  and  repeat  the  declaration 
herein  just  required  ...  as  often  as  such  deplorable  event  may 
occur  my  will  is,  that  the  salary  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  use  of 
the  South  parish  in  Andover.  .  .  .”6 

A  group  of  business  men  in  Newburyport  and  Salem,  John 
Norris,  William  Bartlett  and  Moses  Brown,  associated  them¬ 
selves  with  the  undertaking.  Norris’  special  interest  was  foreign 
missions.  He  took  ten  thousand  silver  dollars  from  the  bank, 
put  them  in  firkins  and  devoutly  consecrated  them  to  God  for 


140 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


a  seminary  in  which  missionaries  should  be  trained.7  These 
“Associate  Founders”  remembering  how  the  Hollis  Foundation 
had  been  perverted,  determined  to  safeguard  their  own  property 
from  a  similar  fate  and  to  that  end  drew  up  the  famous  “Asso¬ 
ciates’  Creed”  with  an  almost  incredible  degree  of  caution  to 
prevent  the  institution  or  any  professor  deriving  his  salary  from 
the  Associate  Foundation  from  teaching  opinions  regarded  as 
unsound.8  Every  professor  was  obliged  to  subscribe  publicly 
every  five  years  to  this  declaration  of  his  faith  and  purpose  as  a 
teacher.  Prof.  Park  did  this  for  forty-five  years,  not  merely 
as  to  substance  but  as  to  detail.6 

Article  2  of  the  Associate  Statutes  provided  that  “every  pro¬ 
fessor  on  the  Associate  Foundation  shall  be  ...  an  ordained 
minister  of  the  Congregational  or  Presbyterian  denomination 
...  an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist.  .  .  .  He  shall  on  the 
day  of  his  inauguration  publicly  make  and  subscribe  a  solemn 
declaration  of  his  faith  in  divine  revelation  and  in  the  funda¬ 
mental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  expressed 
in  the  following  creed.”10  Of  this  I  quote  only  eight  clauses: 

Article  2.  I  believe  that  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  only  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Article  4.  That  in  the  Godhead  are  three  persons,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  Three  are  One 
God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

Article  12.  That  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eter¬ 
nal  Son  of  God  who  for  this  purpose  became  man  and  continues 
to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
forever. 

Article  13.  That  Christ  as  our  Redeemer  executeth  the  office 
of  a  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King. 

Article  14.  That  agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemption  the 
Son  of  God  and  He  alone  by  His  suffering  and  death  has  made 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 

Article  16.  That  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only 
ground  of  a  sinner’s  justification,  that  this  righteousness  is  re- 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


141 


ceived  through  faith  and  that  this  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  so 
that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace. 

Article  32.  And  furthermore  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  I 
will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity 
and  faithfulness. 

Article  33.  That  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian 
faith  as  expressed  in  the  creed  by  me  now  repeated  together  with 
all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  religion  so  far 
as  may  appertain  to  my  office  according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me  and  in  opposition  not  only  to  atheists  and  infidels 
but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mohammedans,  Arians,  Pelagians, 
Antinomians,  Arminians,  Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians  and 
Universalists  and  to  all  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  and  modern, 
which  may  be  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

That  every  professor  is  required  to  adopt  each  several  article 
of  the  creed  is  evident  from  the  emphatic  language  of  Article 
27  in  the  Associate  Statutes.  This  reads:  “It  is  strictly  and 
solemnly  enjoined  and  left  in  sacred  charge  that  every  article 
of  the  above  said  creed  shall  forever  remain  entirely  and  iden¬ 
tically  the  same  without  the  least  alteration,  addition,  or  diminu¬ 
tion.  .  .  .”  No  statute  makes  allusion  to  any  “substance  of  doc¬ 
trine”  modifying  in  any  manner  the  strict  interpretation  of  the 
creed. 

Down  through  the  nineteenth  century  rich  bequests  continued 
to  come  to  Andover.  The  remembrance  of  the  Unitarian  breach 
of  trust  seems  to  have  been  in  the  minds  of  most  of  the  donors. 
Mr.  N.  Pike,  in  bequeathing  $1,000  to  Andover,  wrote  “but 
should  that  creed  cease  to  be  professed  and  practiced  upon  in 
said  Institution  the  said  fund  shall  revert  to  my  heirs  forever.” 
Moses  Brown  leaving  $25,000  by  will  for  a  professorship  in 
ecclesiastical  history  made  similar  specifications.  Samuel  Hitch¬ 
cock  gave  the  seminary  $15,000  with  the  stipulation  “that  none 
who  in  the  judgment  of  the  faculty  and  trustees  of  the  institu¬ 
tion  hold  or  express  doctrinal  views  in  any  essential  points  incon¬ 
sistent  with  this  creed  be  allowed  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  this 
endowment.”  A  second  gift  of  $50,000  was  received  by  the 


142 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


trustees  with  the  declaration  that  he  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  “may 
rest  assured  that  our  board  will  most  gladly  and  faithfully  hold 
the  same  in  grateful  trust  in  accordance  with  his  desire.”  “Posi¬ 
tive  evangelical  faith”  was  required  of  the  holders  of  the  Rice, 
Draper,  and  Prudence  Holbrook  scholarships.11 

The  seminary  was  still  further  strengthened  by  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  a  Board  of  Visitors,  similar  to  the  Boards  of  Overseers 
of  Harvard  and  of  Bowdoin.  It  was  to  be  a  permanent  insti¬ 
tution,  “to  continue  as  the  sun  and  the  moon  forever.”  Election 
of  professors  required  their  ratification.  They  were  supreme 
over  the  trustees,  the  representatives  of  the  founders  in  the  over¬ 
sight  of  the  seminary,  in  the  protection  of  its  funds,  in  the  re¬ 
moval  of  professors  for  heteredoxy  or  neglect  of  duty.  By  the 
ninth  article  of  the  additional  statute  it  was  provided  that  “the 
Visitors  should  take  the  same  pledge  as  the  professors  and  should 
repeat  it  every  five  years.12 

The  substance  of  instruction  was  also  indicated.  In  the 
eighth  article  of  the  Constitution  it  w^as  required  that  “under 
the  head  of  Christian  theology  shall  be  comprehended  lectures 
on  divine  revelation,  on  the  inspiration  and  truth  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  as  proved  by  miracles,  internal  evidence, 
fulfilment  of  prophecies  and  historic  facts  .  .  .  more  particu¬ 
larly  on  the  revealed  character  of  God  as  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost;  on  the  character,  offices,  atonement  and  medi¬ 
ation  of  Jesus  Christ  ...  on  the  Scripture  doctrines  of 
regeneration,  justification,  and  sanctification;  on  the  eternity 
of  future  rewards  and  punishments  as  revealed  in  the 
Gospel.13 

The  State  of  Massachusetts  formally  ratified  these  arrange¬ 
ments.  When  in  1889  the  seminary  applied  for  “right  to  hold 
an  increased  amount  of  property”  this  was  allowed  “provided 
the  income  of  said  estate  shall  always  be  applied  to  the  objects 
and  purposes  of  the  said  institution  and  agreeably  to  the  will  of 
the  donors.”14 

Three-quarters  of  a  century  of  unexampled  prosperity  fol¬ 
lowed.  “No  school  of  the  kind  had  a  nobler  history  or  lent 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


143 


more  glory  to  its  benefactors.  .  .  .  Students  flocked  to  Andover 
from  all  lands  and  all  Protestant  churches.  Her  professors  for 
nearly  a  century  shed  immortal  honor  on  her,  on  theological 
science,  and  the  whole  church  of  Christ.  Her  light  went  out 
into  all  the  world.  Through  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  she  taught 
the  best  English-speaking  clergy  of  all  lands.  Andover’s  pub¬ 
lishing  house  of  Draper  sent  the  best  theological  books  into  the 
study  of  every  ambitious  minister.  Her  missionary  spirit  was 
vigorous.  Her  graduates  from  the  very  beginning  went  forth 
into  heathen  lands.  .  .  .  christianized  and  civilized  whole  races 
and  later  went  also  into  our  own  West  and  planted  academies, 
colleges,  and  theological  schools,  built  churches  and  evangelized 
large  portions  of  our  land.  She  became  the  model  of  every 
theological  school  in  America. 

“Yes,  she  had  a  glorious  history.  And  it  was  the  outgrowth 
of  the  theological  and  religious  spirit  of  the  founders,  of  that 
vital  and  vitalizing  faith  which  came  to  them  from  Christ,  Paul, 
the  Reformation,  Puritanism — the  tremendous  energy  of  that 
evangelicism  which  founded  modern  missions  and  modern  re¬ 
form.  The  American  Educational  Society,  the  American  Tract 
Society,  the  American  Temperance  Society,  the  plan  of  the 
oldest  religious  newspaper  in  America,  and  really,  though  indi¬ 
rectly,  both  the  Congregational  and  Baptist  Missionary  societies, 
all  had  their  origin  on  that  dear  and  famous  Hill.  After  nearly 
a  century  and  a  quarter  the  pulsations  of  her  heart  are  still  felt 
in  the  energies  of  a  thousand  churches.”16 

The  story  of  “liberal”  jockeying  with  the  Andover  consti¬ 
tution  and  repudiation  of  the  wishes  of  the  founders  is  too  long 
to  relate  in  detail.  The  five  professors  who  broke  down  the  old 
order  were  charged  with  affirming  that  “the  Bible  is  not  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  but  is  fallible  and  untrust¬ 
worthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings;  that  Christ  in 
the  day  of  his  humiliation  was  merely  a  finite  being  limited  in 
all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments”  and  fourteen  other 
departures  from  the  creed.  Professor  Smyth  denied  all  and  in¬ 
sisted  that  the  creed  could  be  “interpreted”  to  cover  the  opinions 


144 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  himself  and  associates.*  Their  lawyers  made  use  of  the  usual 
ad  captandum  arguments  of  liberalism  caught  red-handed  in 
other  people’s  property.17 

“It  is  monstrous  to  bribe  men  to  teach  what  they  do  not  be¬ 
lieve.  .  .  .  The  Phillipses,  Browns  and  Abbotts,  noble  in  their 
intention  and  sincere  Christians  but  erring  in  sound  judgment, 
bedded  their  little  institution  on  the  hills  of  Andover  among 
the  mud  and  rubbish  of  extinct  controversies.”  (Dwight.) 
“This  is  a  prosecution  for  non-conformity  to  a  certain  creed. 
Its  logical  outcome  is  that  you  are  asked  to  decide  that  false¬ 
hoods  may  be  taught  at  Andover (Gaston.)  “Whatever  the 
professors  have  published  in  ‘Progressive  Orthodoxy’  or  ‘The 
Andover  Review’  has  no  bearing;  only  what  they  teach  their 
pupils  is  relevant.”  (Dwight.)  Prof.  Simeon  Baldwin  insisted 
that  “to  understand  the  creed  one  must  read  between  the  lines ” 
as  if  one  could  interpret  a  will  after  such  a  fashion.18 

The  Board  of  Visitors  found  that  “E.  C.  Smyth  maintains 
and  inculcates  beliefs  inconsistent  with  and  repugnant  to  the 
creed  of  said  institution  and  contrary  to  the  true  intent  of  the 
founders  and  adjudged  and  decreed  that  he  be  removed  from  the 
office  of  Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History.”19  The 
trustees  defended  the  professors  and  expressed  their  sympathy 
with  them.  Smyth  sat  tight,  t  The  court  failed  to  uphold  the 
Visitors’  decision.  In  1899  the  Board  of  Visitors  who  by  the 
constitution  had  themselves  to  take  the  Associates’  Creed  decided 

^Consider  the  fine  phrases.  “I  hold  that  the  creed  of  the  seminary 
does  not  bind  the  institution  to  an  antiquated  phase  of  belief  but  leads 
logically  to  those  adjustments  of  thought  and  belief  which  are  now 
necessary  and  leaves  an  open  path  for  such  as  the  future  may  require. 
...  At  certain  points  its  silences  are  even  more  expressive  than  its 
utterances.  ...  I  desire  to  secure  for  others  after  me  the  rights  of  a 
reverent  scholarship  in  the  study  of  God’s  word.  .  .  .  The  creed  was 
not  intended  to  forbid  progress;  it  invites  to  progress.  ...  Is  the 
seminary  committed  to  the  maintenance  of  transient  opinion  or  is  there 
a  truer  interpretation  of  the  creed?” — Prof.  E.  C.  Smyth,  The  Andover 
Creed,  xviii,  xxii. 

t“The  action  of  the  visitors  in  deposing  Prof.  Smyth  was  not  taken 
seriously.  .  .  .  When  Prof.  Smyth  went  on  with  his  work  as  if  nothing 
had  taken  place  his  course  seemed  natural  and  consiste-nt.” — W.  J. 
Tucker,  My  Generation,  159. 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


145 


that  the  trustees  of  the  seminary  had  a  right  to  dispense  with 
public  subscription  and  the  trustees  nothing  loth  abolished  it. 
No  change  was  made  in  the  seminary  constitution.  The  whole 
destructive  procedure  was  by  way  of  interpretation.  Professors 
were  henceforth  to  be  held  to  “substance  of  doctrine”  merely. 

The  only  bright  spot  in  the  whole  episode  appears  in  a  letter 
of  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer  who  resigned  his  Andover  chair  and 
betook  himself  to  the  Harvard  Divinity  School.  In  the  Con¬ 
gregation  alist  of  June  14,  1882,  he  wrote: 

“The  statutes  of  the  seminary  require  a  rigid  assent  to  the 
letter  of  the  Creed  on  the  part  of  all  persons  subscribing  to  it; 
the  boards  of  administration,  however,  accept  a  general  and 
approximate  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Creed  as  the  sufficient 
prerequisite  to  subscription.  But  the  honesty  of  such  general 
and  approximate  subscription  has  of  late  been  publicly  and 
extensively  called  in  question;  yet  the  trustees  are  disinclined 
publicly  to  acknowledge  and  vindicate  it. 

“To  remain  in  my  office,  therefore,  would  be  to  remain  con¬ 
stantly  exposed  to  the  charge  or  the  suspicion  of  dishonesty 
without  the  prospect  of  open  vindication  and  with  the  certainty 
that  whatever  I  might  say  in  my  own  defence  would  be  largely 
neutralized.  .  .  . 

”But  it  is  asked ,  'Why  do  you  not  remain  at  your  post  and 
labor  there  to  bring  about  a  change V 

“1  reply ,  ' Because  my  obligation  to  be  and  be  known  to  be  an 
honest  man  outweighs  all  other  obligations  to  trustees  or  semi¬ 
nary.  .  .  .  “Yours  truly, 

“J.  Henry  Thayer,”20 

How  unique  a  statement  in  the  history  of  theological  liberal¬ 
ism! 

The  fate  of  Andover  constitutes  a  brilliant  illustration  for 
a  remark  made  to  Pastor  Quistorp  by  the  late  Prof.  Troeltsch. 
“We  cannot  use  force  on  the  evangelical  church  but  we  have 
another  weapon  in  order  to  overpower  it.  That  is  to  appoint 
the  greatest  possible  number  of  radical  and  liberal  professors 
and  then  it  will  of  itself  and  from  within  go  to  pieces.”  The 


146  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

founders  of  Andover  had  feared,  as  they  expressed  it,  “the 
changing  of  the  fountain  of  living  waters”  into  “a  river  of 
death.”21  The  course  of  Andover  after  its  capture  by  new 
theology  justified  their  fears.  The  number  of  students  began 
to  dwindle.  Back  in  the  sixties  Dr.  Northrop,  pleading  for 
funds  to  establish  a  Baptist  seminary  in  Chicago,  pointed  to 
Andover  as  an  illustration  of  what  a  great  evangelical  seminary 
could  mean  for  church  and  nation.  “I  was  present  at  com¬ 
mencement  and  saw  there  at  least  a  thousand  men,  trained  in 
that  school,  who  had  come  thither  from  all  parts  of  the  land.  I 
felt  then,  as  never  before,  the  power  of  such  an  agency.”  But 
these  days  were  now  over  for  Andover.22  The  trustees,  Drs. 
G.  A.  Gordon,  N.  Boynton,  C.  L.  Noyes  and  others  decided 
to  transfer  the  seminary  to  Cambridge  with  the  desperate  idea 
of  attracting  students  from  the  large  student  body  of  Harvard. 
This  course  they  justified  by  the  following  considerations: 

1.  The  steady  falling  off  in  attendance  amounting  at  the 
present  time  to  a  practical  desertion  of  the  seminary  by  students 
for  the  ministry. 

2.  The  consequent  unproductive  use  and  so  far  waste  of 
funds  and  endowments  solemnly  consecrated  by  donors  to  the 
great  ends  of  religion. 

3.  The  failure,  therefore,  to  fulfil  the  true  design  of  the 
Institution  by  “increasing  the  number  of  learned  and  able 
defenders  of  the  Gospel  as  well  as  of  orthodox,  pious  and 
zealous  ministers  of  the  New  Testament 

Who  wrote  these  words  is  not  known  to  the  public.  He 
must  have  thrust  tongue  in  cheek  when  he  set  them  down! 

The  sale  of  land  and  buildings  at  Andover  was  made  with¬ 
out  submitting  the  question  of  removal  and  affiliation  with 
Harvard  to  the  Visitors  and  consequently  without  obtaining 
their  approval.23  The  splendid  Andover  site  with  its  beautiful 
lines  of  elms,  fine  campus,  historic  buildings,  splendid  Brechin 
library  and  all  its  venerable  associations  with  the  past  was 
abandoned  and  the  old  seminary  tagged  to  the  two  little  build¬ 
ings  which  constituted  the  Divinity  School  plant  at  Harvard. 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


147 


In  grateful  recognition  President  Lowell  at  the  Harvard 
Commencement  of  1909  conferred  an  honorary  degree  upon 
one  of  the  Andover  trustees  active  for  the  affiliation,  in  the 
following  phrases:  “Charles  Lothrop  Noyes,  pastor  and 
preacher,  who  in  these  latter  days  has  helped  to  bring  nearer 
together  those  whom  the  blindness  of  man  had  put  asunder.”24 

The  optimism  of  those  who  advised  this  action  seems  in  the 
light  of  subsequent  developments  little  short  of  hare-brained. 
Dr.  A.  P.  Fitch  declared  that  “Andover  at  Cambridge  has  the 
greatest  opportunity  of  a  generation  to  do  that  for  the  lack 
of  which  the  American  church  is  languishing  at  this  very  mo¬ 
ment — intelligently  to  interpret  and  justly  to  exalt  the  person, 
authority,  and  message  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.” 
Prof.  Evans,  who  holds  the  Abbott  Chair  in  Christian  Theology 
which  Prof.  Park  honored  through  long  years,  is  an  Hon. 
Vice-President  of  the  National  Federation  of  Religious  Lib¬ 
erals.  Naturally  he  has  none  of  the  foolish  qualms  of  the 
Samuel  Abbott  who,  as  we  have  seen,  withdrew  money  ear¬ 
marked  for  Harvard  because  of  its  Unitarianism.  “We  have 
no  occasion  to  fear  her  [Harvard’s]  influence  but  rather  to 
rejoice  that  she  has  proved  to  be  our  great  co-worker  in  helping 
young  men  to  find  and  keep  the  faith.”25  Again  the  tongue 
is  in  the  cheek!  The  Congregationalist  (Mch.  27  :09)  joined  in 
approval, 

“Those  who  have  taken  these  responsibilities  of  training 
ministers  for  the  churches  realize  that  they  are  heirs  of  a  great 
past.  .  .  .  Andover  has  a  noble  mission  yet  to  be  fulfilled.  .  .  . 
Andover  goes  to  Cambridge  to  develop  there  further  its  own 
type  of  evangelical  Christian  faith.  So  the  new  Andover  will 
be  the  old  Andover  growing  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  cherished  in  the  affections  and 
prayers  of  the  churches  and  sending  forth  their  choice  youth  to 
preach  the  Gospel  in  all  the  world.” 

This  rhetoric  was  but  the  flowers  sent  to  a  funeral. 

The  next  act  of  the  drama  was  soon  staged.  Dr.  W.  J. 
Tucker,  himself  one  of  the  five  professors  of  the  trial  in  the 


148 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


eighties,  stated  what  everyone  knows:  “If  Andover  Seminary 
was  established  to  oppose  and  counteract  any  influence  it  was 
that  of  Unitarianism.  .  .  .  This  is  an  historic  fact  which  none 
will  dispute.”26  But  the  trustees  were  not  embarrassed  by 
scruples  on  that  score.  In  June,  1922,  they  proceeded  to  merge 
the  seminary  with  the  Harvard  Divinity  School.  The  Visitors 
asked  Judge  Crosby  for  an  injunction.  It  was  refused! 

According  to  the  terms  of  the  new  arrangement  it  was  stated 
that  “the  continuity  and  distinct  existence  as  an  institution  of 
Andover  Theological  Seminary  shall  be  maintained,  all  of  its 
trusts  being  executed  as  heretofore.”  Then  with  what  seems 
like  mockery  the  public  was  informed  that, 

“The  president  and  fellows  of  Harvard  College  and  the 
trustees  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary  shall  join  to  form 
a  non-denominational  theological  school  with  single  faculty ,  roll 
of  students ,  administration  and  catalogue What  actually  was 
in  mind  comes  out  in  the  following  clause, 

“Each  corporation  in  determining  whether  any  chair  on  its 
foundation  shall  be  filled  or  left  vacant,  will  endeavor  so  far  as 
practicable  to  take  such  action  as  may  best  contribute  to  the 
symmetry  and  efficiency  of  the  school  as  a  whole Z'27  The 
theological  symmetry  aimed  at,  we  may  be  sure,  was  not  to 
be  evangelical  in  the  sense  of  old  Andover  nor  in  the  remotest 
degree  to  approximate  it. 

Andover  can  still  nominate  its  professors  but  appointment 
rests  solely  with  the  governing  boards  of  Harvard  University. 
“In  other  words  no  one  can  teach  in  the  new  school  without 
the  official  appointment  of  Harvard  University,  thus  as  a 
practical  matter  taking  the  whole  thing  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  Trustees  and  Visitors  of  Andover.”*28 

^Referring  to  the  appointment  of  Andover  professors  by  Harvard, 
President  Lowell  said  before  the  alumni  of  Andover,  June  13,  ’22: 

“This  is  of  course  necessary  because  the  new  school  is  a  part  of 
the  University  and  is  as  completely  under  its  control  as  every  other 
department.  It  is  a  school  of  the  University,  by  the  University  and 
for  all  God’s  people.”  C.R.  1922:586. 

The  Associate  Statutes  provided  that  “no  student  in  this  seminary 
shall  ever  be  charged  for  instruction”  and  for  a  hundred  years  this 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


149 


The  Andover  property  brought  to  the  Harvard  School  of 
Theology  amounts  to  more  than  a  million  dollars;  its  contri¬ 
bution  to  the  joint  library  was  over  70,000  volumes.  [The 
Harvard  Divinity  School  had  46,000.]  One  could  have  wished 
for  the  honor  of  that  human  nature  which  is  so  highly  esteemed 
in  “liberal”  circles  that  some  Unitarian  voice  might  have  been 
heard  protesting,  “These  funds  should  not  be  pooled !  It  is  trea¬ 
son  to  the  explicit  agreements  made  with  the  donors.”  But  not 
a  whisper  was  perceptible.  Dr.  Samuel  A.  Eliot,  in  the  1923 
report  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  says:  “The 
combination  of  the  Harvard  Divinity  School  and  the  Andover 
Theological  Seminary  has  preserved  two  noble  traditions  and 
provided  a  liberal  professional  school  exceptionally  rich  in  equip¬ 
ment.”  What  it  has  done  is  to  complete  the  destruction 
of  a  noble  tradition.  The  new  school  is  rich  in  equipment, 
ignobly  rich.  In  student  body  it  is  as  impoverished  as 
ever. 

The  bust  of  Prof.  Edwards  A.  Park  stands  aloft  in  the 
Gothic  library  of  Andover  Hall  where  I  suppose  it  gravely 
listens  on  occasion  to  “Kind  Mother  of  Truth,”  the  school 
hymn  of  the  old  Unitarian  seminary,  wafted  from  the  near-by 
chapel.  I  recall,  as  a  boy,  sitting  opposite  the  great  theologian 
at  the  table  in  my  father’s  home.  He  was  speaking  in  the 
course  of  his  conversation  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  found 
himself  unable  to  control  his  emotions.  But  the  author  ©f 
“Kind  Mother  of  Truth,”  a  professor-emeritus  in  the  joint 
school,  can  bring  himself  to  write  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
“a  man  of  sin.” 

The  Theological  School  of  Harvard  University  is  “non¬ 
sectarian.”  This  word  has  in  connection  with  the  Harvard 
Divinity  School  a  significant  history.  In  the  last  century  the 

was  the  case.  It  is  no  longer  so.  The  tuition  is  $150.  Scholarships 
funds  were  in  most  instances  given  for  “needy  and  indigent5’  students. 
They  are  now  used  for  fellowships  and  scholarships  [two  of  $800  and 
two  of  $700]  for  students  of  highest  standing.  Tuition  in  every  case 
is  first  deducted  so  that  money  intended  for  poor  students  is  used  to 
pay  salaries  of  professors. — Brief  for  the  Visitors ,  77  and  12. 


150 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


presence  of  the  Unitarian  Divinity  School  at  Harvard  was  felt 
to  be  a  distinct  disadvantage  to  the  college  as  hindering  the 
recruiting  of  college  students.  The  University,  therefore,  at¬ 
tempted  to  break  the  connection  between  itself  and  its  theo¬ 
logical  incubus,  but  was  prevented  by  the  courts.*30  So  the 
Unitarian  school  was  declared  “non-sectarian”  and  at  times 
professors,  whose  theology  made  their  departure  from  evan¬ 
gelical  schools  desirable,  became  the  nominal  representatives 

*The  Massachusetts  courts  extended  a  sheltering  wing  over  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  Divinity  School  (Harvard  Coll.  vs.  Soc.)  “The  court  cannot 
.  .  .  direct  the  withdrawal  of  the  funds  above  described  and  others  of 
like  character  from  the  supervision  and  trust  of  that  permanent  cor¬ 
porate  body  to  which  they  were  instructed  by  their  donors  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  a  theological  school  as  a  branch  of  the  uni¬ 
versity  and  commit  them  to  an  independent  board  of  trustees  to  be 
appropriated  to  maintaining  a  separate  theological  school.  ...  A  con¬ 
trary  decision  would  furnish  a  precedent  dangerous  to  the  perpetuity 
and  sacredness  of  our  great  public  charities,  leaving  the  question  of  the 
management  and  supervision  of  our  public  charities  to  be  the  subject  of 
change  with  every  fluctation  of  popular  opinion  as  to  what  may  be  the 
more  expedient  and  useful  mode  of  administering  them.” — Brief  for 
Visitors ,  85. 

The  following  two  passages  appear  in  the  same  number  of  the 
Christian  Register,  1922:586  and  583  : 

President  Lowell  loquitur.  “The  process  of  making  the  Harvard 
Divinity  school  non-sectarian  has  been  going  on  for  many  years.  It 
was  heartily  fostered  by  President  Eliot  and  it  went  so  far  that  on 
May  20,  1906,  he  and  the  corporation  assured  the  Carnegie  Foundation 
that  “in  Harvard  University  no  denominational  test  is  imposed  .  .  . 
nor  any  denominational  tenets  or  doctrines  taught  to  students.” 

Dr.  Dieffenbach  loquitur.  [He  is  speaking  of  President  Lowell’s 
Jewish  policy.]  After  dwelling  on  Harvard’s  unvarying  hospitality 
to  all  races  and  creeds  he  says  of  the  Unitarians’  theological  blood- 
brethren,  the  Jews,  “It  is  obvious  that  some  method  must  be  devised 
that  will  keep  the  number  of  Jews  within  such  limits  as  will  assure 
for  the  student  body  and  institution  as  a  whole  a  reasonably  united 
and  harmonious  community.  ...  If  the  Jews  cannot  be  fully  accom¬ 
modated  there  is  opportunity  for  them  in  institutions  where  they  may 
have  training  as  good  as  that  in  Harvard.” 

A  fund  of  $150,000  has  been  given  for  the  maintenance  of  religious 
work  in  Harvard  University  upon  the  principles  now  adopted  in  the 
administration  of  Appleton  Chapel.  If  these  change  the  endowment 
is  to  revert  to  the  American  Unitarian  Association.  C.R.  1915:220. 

In  order  to  secure  the  benefits  of  the  Carnegie  Pension  Fund,  Bow- 
doin  College  turned  over  to  Andover  Theological  Seminary  $56,118 
of  the  Stone  bequest  which  had  been  received  by  the  college  to  be  used 
as  long  as  it  represented  the  religious  and  doctrinal  views  of  the  ortho¬ 
dox  Congregational  churches  of  New  England.  This  money  is  now  in 
the  control  of  the  Harvard  Theological  School ! 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


151 


of  other  churches  than  the  Unitarian  on  the  “non-sectarian” 
faculty.  On  the  strength  of  this  dubious  “non-sectarianism” 
the  professors  of  this  essentially  Unitarian  school  have  been 
eligible  to  pensions  from  the  Carnegie  Fund,  pensions 
which  could  never  be  obtained  by  theological  professors  else¬ 
where. 

The  magnitude  of  the,  at  least,  implicit  prevarication  which 
has  accompanied  the  Andover  “capture,”  is  such  as  to  be  almost 
humorous.  The  Andover  trustees  and  the  president  and  fellows 
of  Harvard  College  say  that  the  instruction  given  in  the  theo¬ 
logical  school  at  Harvard  University  by  Andover  professors  is 
orthodox  and  is  consistent  with  the  Westminster  Assembly’s 
Shorter  Catechism  and  with  the  creed  set  out  in  the  Associate 
Statutes  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,*  as  said  confession 
and  creed  have  for  many  years  been  interpreted  and  applied 
by  the  plaintiffs,  and  that  such  instruction  is  not  different  in 
its  theological  tendencies  from  that  given  for  many  years  past 
in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  As  to  the  instruction  given 
in  the  Theological  School  in  Harvard  University  by  persons 
other  than  Andover  professors,  these  defendants  say  that,  so 
far  as  such  instruction  has  any  theological  complexion,  “the  same 
is  for  the  most  part  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  the  in¬ 
struction  given  by  the  Andover  professors/'31  f 

*Yet  the  present  trustees  state  to  the  Massachusetts  Supreme  Court 
“that  the  Andover  Theological  Seminary  is  not  now  and  never  has  been 
subject  to  any  denominational  or  sectarian  control  or  committed,  to  the 
propagation  of  any  particular  doctrines  except  that  by  the  terms  of 
certain  donations  referred  to  in  the  will  the  professors  or  students  who 
receive  the  benefit  thereof  are  required  to  be  Congregational  or  Presby¬ 
terian  or  to  hold  certain  doctrinal  views  none  of  which  requirements 
are  in  any  way  affected  or  impaired  by  the  Plan  of  Closer  A filiation" 
with  the  Harvard  School. — Visitors  vs.  Trustees,  53. 

When,  however,  money  is  to  be  raised  the  shoe  is  on  the  other  foot. 
The  Master  in  Equity  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  “in  1921  when 
efforts  were  made  by  the  trustees  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary 
to  raise  an  endowment  the  appeal  was  limited  to  Trinitarian  Congre- 
gationalists." — Master's  Report,  103. 

tVisitors  of  the  Theological  Institution  at  Andover  vs.  Trustees  of 
Andover  Theological  Seminary  and  others,  Exhibit  C. 

Statement  of  Andover  Trustees:  “Its  [Harvard  Divinity]  faculty  has 
been  composed  of  Trinitarians.”  [e.  g.,  Prof.  G.  F.  Moore!]  “Prof. 


152 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Paris  is  worth  a  mass ! 

In  the  words  of  Mr.  Weston,  attorney  for  the  Visitors,  “We 
have  Andover  Theological  Seminary  founded  by  orthodox 
Trinitarians  bound  to  a  specific  creed  which  cannot  be  varied; 
founded  for  the  purpose  of  combatting  Unitarianism  and  other 
doctrines  by  the  founders  regarded  as  unorthodox.  We  have 
the  Harvard  Divinity  School  founded  as  a  Unitarian  school 
and  until  recently  continued  as  such;  and  of  late  years  a  sup¬ 
posedly  non-sectarian  school  pledged  in  the  strongest  language 
to  the  Carnegie  Pension  Fund  that  no  creed  or  sectarian  doc¬ 
trine  of  any  kind  is  or  can  be  taught.  These  two  institutions 
agree  that  there  shall  be  ‘no  rivalry  or  competition.’  Andover 
must  teach  according  to  the  creed,  Harvard  cannot  teach  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  creed ;  they  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  be  anything 
but  rivals  and  competitors.  If  the  Andover  professors  are  to 
live  up  to  these  requirements  and  their  oaths  of  office,  how  can 
they  teach  in  harmony  with  an  institution  linked  to  the  Carnegie 
Pension  system  ? 

“The  intention  of  the  founders  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary  w~as  for  the  teaching  of  a  certain  well-defined 
and  carefully  described  kind  of  theology,  that  is  orthodox, 
evangelical,  Trinitarian,  in  accordance  with  the  Westminster 
catechism  and  the  Andover  creed;  not  a  comprehensive  scheme 
of  theological  education.  The  Constitution  is  most  specific. 
The  Founders  were  not  interested  in  general  theological  non¬ 
sectarian  or  undenominational  education.  To  them  the  partic¬ 
ular,  important  thing  was  the  combatting  of  certain  ideas  along 
theological  educational  lines  which  Harvard  and  the  professors 
of  divinity  in  Harvard  stood  for,  to  which  they  were  most 
strongly  opposed.”32 

Unitarians  themselves  know  how  to  appraise  this  “non-sec¬ 
tarianism.”  While  “the  president  and  fellows  of  Harvard 

Kirsopp  Lake  belongs  to  the  Church  of  England.  Prof.  La  Piana  is  a 
Catholic  priest  of  modernist  type.  While  the  evidence  did  not  disclose 
the  denominational  connection  of  Profs.  Ford  and  Davison  it  appeared 
that  both  of  them  were  regular  attendants  at  Appleton  Chapel”! — 
Report  of  the  Master  in  Equity,  109. 

Fine  old  Calvinists  one  and  all ! 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


153 


University  deny  that  the  Divinity  School  is  teaching  or  has 
for  many  years  taught  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  the 
Christian  denomination  or  sect  called  or  known  as  Unitarian,”33 
Dr.  S.  A.  Eliot  affirms  that  “the  Unitarian  churches  have  for 
a  hundred  years  largely  depended  upon  the  Harvard  Divinity 
School  for  the  supply  of  churches.”34  “No  one  can  rightly 
think  that  the  school  has  ceased  to  be  Unitarian  because  it  is 
no  longer  a  Unitarian  school ,”  said  Dr.  J.  W.  Day  in  reviewing 
the  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Harvard  Divinity  School.35 
“Manchester  College  at  Oxford  calls  itself  non-sectarian,” 
writes  Rev.  G.  C.  Cressey  [Unitarian],  “but  it  is  really  more 
Unitarian  than  ever .  .  .  .  So  with  the  Harvard  Divinity  School 
and  practically  with  the  newly-formed  theological  school  in 
Harvard  University.” 36  And  an  editorial  in  the  Christian 
Register  says:  “The  Unitarian  church  may  be  sure  the  spirit 
in  the  theological  school  at  Harvard  University  is  in  harmony 
with  the  Unitarian  spirit  and  needs.” 37 

But  is  not  the  dean  of  the  joint  school  a  Congregationalist  ? 
It’s  the  old  shell  game.  Dean  Sperry  is  a  Congregationalist 
and  vice-president  of  the  Free  Religious  Association  which 
represents  the  radical  wing  of  the  Unitarian  body.38  Regarding 
Andover,  Dean  Sperry  has  recently  written : 

“In  general,  members  of  the  orthodox  or  Trinitarian  branch 
of  Congregationalism  are  humbly  and  gratefully  mindful  of 
the  fact  that  it  was  Unitarians  who  over  all  the  middle  of 
the  last  century  bore  the  brunt  of  the  attack  upon  a  more 
and  more  incredible  Calvinism  and  won,  not  only  for  them¬ 
selves,  but  for  their  more  laggard  brethren  of  orthodoxy,  that 
victory.  U nitarianism  might  well  claim  that  to  the  victors 
belong  the  spoils .*  ...  In  this  closer  affiliation  at  Harvard, 
the  Divinity  School  has  generously  welcomed  the  sons  of  ortho¬ 
dox  Andover  into  the  places  of  freedom  and  has  waited  and 

*“Andover  at  Cambridge/’  wrote  an  alumnus  of  Andover  to  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  Conference  of  the  Andover  Alumni  Asso¬ 
ciation,  Dec.  1906,  “will  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  old  seminary 
that  a  scalp  at  the  belt  of  an  Indian  bears  to  the  man  from  whose 
head  it  was  taken.” 


154 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


watched  with  patient  good  humor  the  legal  difficulties  into 
which  Andover  has  been  plunged  by  founders  who  tried  to 
be  wiser  than  posterity.” 39 

“To  the  victors  belong  the  spoils.”  Having  stripped  the 
prostrate  form,  the  victors  proceed  to  dance  upon  it.  The 
Unitarian  ministers  directly  after  the  merger  took  place,  with 
incredible  tactlessness,  went  to  Andover  to  hold  their  Insti¬ 
tute.  They  were  in  fine  fettle.  In  the  assignment  of  rooms 
in  the  old  Andover  dormitories,  cards  were  used  with  such 
jocose  names  as  Tophet,  Canaan,  Babylon,  the  Dead  Sea.  A 
mock  trial,  “the  most  elaborate  and  hilarious  w~e  ever  saw,” 
was  staged  in  which  Albertus  Carolus  Dieffenbachus  was  finally 
acquitted  of  the  charge  of  “Fundamentalism.”  “In  the  early 
days  a  Unitarian  meeting  on  the  Hill  would  have  been  incon¬ 
ceivable,”40  wrote  one  reporter,  and  another  with  upward  roll 
of  eyes,  “I  feel  sure  that  if  the  sainted  Andover  theologians 
could  have  walked  among  us,  those  devout  and  scholarly  men 
who  made  this  school  of  learning  famous,  would  have  given 
us  of  the  other  wing  of  Congregationalism  their  blessing.  They 
now  see  with  larger  eyes  than  when  they  were  here  in  the 
flesh,  and  we  are  one  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit.”41 

The  hunter  had  hardly  disappeared  in  the  distance  with  the 
dead  swan  on  his  back,  when  the  geese,  too,  were  seen  nibbling 
the  bait.  In  the’catalogue  of  the  Harvard  Divinity  School  are 
listed  students  from  the  Episcopal  School,  Cambridge,  from 
the  Boston  University  School  (Methodist),  and  from  Newton 
Theological  Institution  (Baptist).  The  Harvard  theological 
seminarist  must  pay  $150  per  annum;  students  in  these  outlying 
schools  may  take  Harvard  theological  courses  without  charge. 
Indeed  the  Harvard  authorities  with  an  artless  munificence' 
have  even  thrown  open  to  Newton  students  what  President 
Horr  calls  “the  famous  Williams  scholarships  of  $500  each” — 
famous  no  doubt  from  the  fact  that  the  founder  was  a  Boston 
rum-seller  in  an  earlier  day.  King’s  Chapel  [Unitarian]  has 
organized  a  “seminary  week,”  at  which  President  Horr  appears 
on  “Newton  day,”  and  the  representatives  of  Harvard,  Boston 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


155 


and  the  Episcopal  School  at  appointed  times,*  but  even  the  most 
accomplished  effrontery  could  not  go  through  the  mockery  of 
an  Andover  day.  President  Horr  lectures  in  the  Unitarian 
summer  school  for  ministers  at  Harvard,  and  Newton  pro¬ 
fessors  are  frequent  preachers  at  King’s  Chapel  and  Arlington 
St.  [Unitarian  churches].42  Drs.  Peabody,  Fenn,  Jacks,  and 
Dieffenbach,  appear  on  Newton  Hill  and  President  Lowell  of 
Harvard  is  picked  as  the  prominent  figure  of  the  Newton 
centenary  celebration  in  1925.  When  the  Baptist  theological 
professors  of  the  country  held  a  conference  in  Boston  the 
Harvard  Divinity  School  proffered  them  a  dinner,43  and  in 

^President  Lowell  of  Harvard  before  the  Boston  Baptist  Social  Union: 
“It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  speak  before  the  Baptist  Social  Union  and 
more  especially  on  this  night  which  is  devoted  to  the  Newton  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary,  because  that  Seminary  and  Harvard  and  Andover 
and  the  Episcopal  Theological  School  and  the  School  of  Theology  of 
the  Boston  University  have  all  been  very  close  together  of  late  years 
and  acting  in  harmony. 

“President  Horr  says  I  brought  together  members  of  a  lot  of  different 
denominations.  It  was  he  who  did  it.  He  was  the  liaison  and  I  was 
the  camouflage.  Seventy-four  different  schools  were  represented  on  that 
occasion.  .  .  .  President  Horr  discovered  that  all  Protestant  ministers 
are  on  the  same  side  and  he  proved  it” — Commencement  Bulletin , 
Newton  Theo.  Institute,  Vol.  12,  No.  1. 

At  the  75th  anniversary  of  the  Unitarian  Seminary  at  Meadville 
Prof.  Rowe  appeared  as  “fraternal  delegate”  from  Newton.  President 
Southworth,  a  former  Baptist,  in  recognition  of  this  gesture  remarked, 
“The  world  moves.  .  .  .  All  this  is  a  foreshadowing  of  the  time  when 
the  intrusion  of  the  sectarian  spirit  into  theological  training  will  become 
a  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  ministerial  training  schools  of  the 
different  denominations  [are]  much  nearer  together  than  the  denomina¬ 
tions  themselves,  for  scholarship  knows  no  sectarian  limitations.” — 
Report  of  the  Anniversary ,  208.  [Published  by  the  University  of 
Chicago.] 

The  Nevoton  Bulletin  No.  4,  Vol.  9,  3,  remarks:  “It  is  well  to  proclaim 
the  estimate  which  Harvard  puts  upon  the  quality  of  Newton’s  instruc¬ 
tion  and  faculty  as  seen  in  the  announcement  that  Newton  students  are 
admitted  to  Harvard  courses  without  conditions  and  that  Harvard 
requests  for  her  students  the  same  freedom  to  take  courses  at  Newton, 
thus  making  the  relation  reciprocal.”  Three  pages  later  announcement 
is  made  that  the  degree  of  Master  of  Theology  has  been  conferred  on 
C.  F.  Potter. 

A  little  later  Mr.  Potter  passed  into  Unitarianism.  In  the  Funda¬ 
mentalist,  May  15,  ’24,  he  is  reported  as  saying  that  “on  his  graduation 
a  half  dozen  of  the  leading  men  of  the  class  met  in  his  room  after 
the  exercises  were  over  and  in  a  comparison  of  views  all  agreed  that 
they  were  Unitarian  in  belief.  Five  of  them  stated  that  they  would 


156 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


recognition  of  this  courtesy,  President  Horr  with  Unitarian 
help  rounded  up  the  representatives  of  all  the  seminaries  at 
a  Harvard  summer  conference,  which  the  Christian  Register 
declares  “an  historic  meeting  of  American  Christendom.”44  In 
the  atmosphere  of  good-feeling  of  these  “union  movements,” 
the  divisive  truths  of  Christianity  naturally  drop  in  the  back¬ 
ground  and  this  no  doubt  is  the  purpose  of  Unitarian 
strategists. 

When  it  was  announced  that  Boston  University  students 
were  to  be  permitted  to  take  part  of  their  course  in  the 
Harvard  Divinity  School,  the  organ  of  New  England  Method¬ 
ism  declared:  “We  confess  we  are  not  a  little  disturbed.  When 
proposals  were  made  by  Harvard  some  years  ago,  looking  to¬ 
ward  the  removal  of  Andover  to  Cambridge,  evangelical  circles 
were  profoundly  stirred  and  pained.”  It  insisted  on  the  un¬ 
wisdom  of  having  “men  in  the  formative  period  of  their  theo¬ 
logical  career  under  the  influence  of  the  theological  atmosphere, 
which  admittedly  predominates  at  Harvard.  .  .  .  The  union 


stay  in  the  Baptist  denomination  and  try  to  put  their  views  across/’ 
but  Mr.  Potter  came  out  into  the  open. 

Nor  did  the  founders  of  the  Episcopal  School  anticipate  any  teaching 
in  it  or  to  its  students  which  would  be  congenial  to  Harvard  Unita¬ 
rians.  The  trust  deed  states  with  definiteness  what  the  school  was  to 
stand  for. 

“The  instruction  and  teachings  of  the  School  and  of  its  professors 
and  lecturers  shall  always  be  in  conformity  with  the  doctrine,  ritual 
and  orders,  discipline,  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  as  set  forth  in  the  book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  the  Canons  of  the  church  and  shall  at  all  times  embody  and 
distinctly  set  forth  the  great  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  alone  in 
the  Atonement  and  Righteousness  of  Christ  as  taught  in  the  Articles 
of  Religion  commonly  called  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  [Scriptures  alone 
being  the  standard]  as  adopted  at  the  Reformation.  .  .  .” 

More  than  fifty  years  ago  Harvard  Unitarians  invited  the  Methodist 
Theological  school  to  establish  itself  under  the  eaves  of  their  college. 
The  invitation  was  declined.  C.R.  1911:421.  Roman  Catholics  also 
complain  of  these  “leavening”  manipulations.  The  Sacred  Heart  Re¬ 
view,  Jan.  13,  1900,  wrote:  “There  are  those,  having  the  means  of 
knowing,  who  say  that  for  years  back  the  head  of  Harvard  University 
has  systematically  labored  by  every  means  in  his  control  to  bring  about 
a  condition  wrhich  would  compel  all  Catholic  young  men  in  this  section 
of  the  country  who  are  desirous  of  a  college  education  to  go  to  Harvard 
for  it.” 


The  Looting  of  Andover 


157 


in  this  way  of  the  two  institutions  is  certain  to  cause  serious 
concern  and  deep  grief  to  many  devout  souls  .  .  .  loyal  to  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  Methodism.  They  will  see  in 
this  alliance  a  radical  departure  from  those  theological  affirma¬ 
tions  that  are  dear  to  them  as  their  very  lives.  What  would 
our  Methodist  fathers  say  to  such  a  combination?”45 

These  affiliations  one  naturally  interprets  as  a  part  of  that 
campaign  of  infiltration  which  Unitarians  so  often  declare  to 
be  their  mission.  It  should  be  noticed  that  at  the  very  time 
that  Newton  Institution  was  entering  upon  these  relationships, 
American  Baptists  were  being  called  on  to  raise  one  hundred 
millions  for  church  purposes,  the  gigantic  slice  of  $800,000 
being  assigned  to  the  Lilliputian  school  on  Newton  Hill.  What 
protection  is  there  against  the  Andoverization  of  these  endow¬ 
ments  in  the  next  generation?  The  Christian  Register  already 
lists  Newton  as  “scientific,”  one  of  the  few  seminaries  in  the 
country  with  “the  new  atmosphere  in  which  religious  teachings 
are  given  by  men  who  are  thoroughly  open-minded,”  putting  it 
in  brackets  with  Harvard,  Union,  and  that  hearth  of  piety,  the 
Divinity  School  of  the  University  of  Chicago.40  Dr.  S.  A. 
Eliot  expresses  the  hope  that  “the  co-operative  goodwill  that 
animates  the  theological  schools  in  Berkeley,  California,  may 
some  day  become  an  actual  combination  as  in  the  case  of  Har¬ 
vard- Andover.” 47  The  schools  referred  to  are:  Baptist,  Con¬ 
gregational,  and  Unitarian. 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  VI 

1.  The  Andover  Case,  107.  2.  Eddy,  The  Unitarian  Apostasy,  23.  3.  The 

Andover  Case,  vii.  4.  Annals  of  Amherst  College,  11  and  56.  5.  Wood’s 

History  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  59.  6.  Id.  61.  7.  Id.  76.  8.  Id. 

238.  9.  Prof.  Park  and  his  Pupils,  113.  10.  Woods,  Id.  257.  11.  Statement 

of  Th.  Weston,  attorney  for  the  Visitors.  12.  Woods,  250-3.  13.  Woods,  236. 

14.  Acts  of  1889,  ch.  55.  15.  The  Andover  Case,  208.  16.  Faulkner,  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  1923,  458,  “The  Tragic  Fate  of  a  Famous  Seminary.”  17.  Andover 
Case,  xiv,  xix,  xvii.  18.  Id.  7,  xxv,  xviii,  xxiv.  19.  Id.  191.  20.  Id.  151. 

21.  Id.  105.  22.  Address  in  Behalf  of  a  Christian  University  and  Seminary 
in  Chicago,  1867.  23.  Brief  for  Visitors,  51.  24.  Religious  History  of  New 
England,  133.  25.  Addresses  at  Induction  of  Drs.  Evans  and  Fitch,  26  and  21. 
26.  The  Andover  Defence,  277.  27.  Statement  of  Th.  Weston  for  Visitors. 

28.  Brief  for  the  Visitors,  77.  29.  One  Hundredth  Anniversary  of  Harvard 

Divinity  School,  84.  30.  Report  of  Committee  of  Overseers  of  Harvard  College, 


158 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


185S.  31.  Visitors  of  Andover  vs.  Trustees,  84-86.  32.  Brief  for  the  Visitors, 

72.  33.  Visitors  of  Andover  vs.  Trustees,  93.  34.  C.R.  1923:371.  35.  C.R. 

1916:978.  36.  CR.  1923:369.  37.  C.R.  1922:582.  38.  C.R.  1916:525.  39.  C.R. 
1924:  Oct.  16.  40.  C.R.  1922:681-2.  41.  C.R.  1922:684.  42.  C.R.  1921:330. 
43.  C.R.  1918:802.  44.  C.R.  1918:773.  45.  Quoted  from  Zion’s  Herald  in 

CR.  1915:263.  46.  C.R.  1924:1067.  47.  C.R.  1922:759. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  APOSTATE  SEMINARIES 

Und  eure  Weisheit  macht  den  irren  Geist  noch  irrer. 

— Lessing. 

THE  men  who  founded  Union  Theological  Seminary 
were  Puritans  as  were  the  founders  of  Andover.  Absalom 
Peters  organized  the  American  Missionary  Society  and 
was  the  greatest  promoter  of  home  missions  of  the  time.  Edu¬ 
cation  also  was  a  major  interest  with  him.  It  was  he  who 
started  the  American  Journal  of  Education.  William  Patton 
gave  the  initial  impulse  to  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  which  held 
its  first  session  in  London  in  1846.  Joseph  Otis  was  the  founder 
of  the  Seamen’s  Friend  Society  and  the  Seamen’s  Bank  for 
Savings.  Others  were  active  in  educational  and  missionary  en¬ 
terprises.  Among  the  early  directors  were  men  like  Albert 
Barnes,  Anson  G.  Phelps,  Jr.,  John  Center  Baldwin  and  Wil¬ 
liam  E.  Dodge.  At  the  start  the  seminary  had  a  hard  struggle 
and  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith  used  to  declare  that  he  dreaded 
calling  on  the  treasurer  for  his  salary,  so  often  had  he  gone 
home  empty-handed.2  Collections  were  made  in  the  churches 
and  solicitors  even  went  into  factories  and  to  farms  for  sub¬ 
scriptions  of  a  dollar  upward.3  But  with  the  res  angustae  went 
high  thinking  and  piety.  Union,  as  Andover,  trained  a  splendid 
contingent  of  missionaries.  Its  theologians  were  among  the 
great  figures  of  the  Christian  life  in  America;  Edward  Robin¬ 
son,  Henry  B.  Smith,  Profs.  Shedd  and  Schaff,  and  President 
William  Adams. 

In  order  to  ensure  the  evangelical  loyalty  of  the  seminary 
in  years  to  come  the  directors  in  1853  added  to  the  consti¬ 
tutional  clause,  which  gave  them  the  power  to  alter  the  con¬ 
stitution,  an  amendment  limiting  this  power  to  change  “to 

159 


160 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


consistency  with  the  doctrinal  basis  as  now  subscribed  by  the 
directors.”4  It  was  made  an  irrevocable  part  of  the  constitution 
that  every  director  and  professor  should  declare  his  approval 
of  the  Westminster  Confession.  Each  member  of  the  faculty 
was  required  to  subscribe  to  the  following  statement  triennially 
and  in  the  presence  of  the  Board : 

“I  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to 
be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practise ;  and  I  do  now  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the  directors 
of  this  seminary  solemnly  and  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do  also  in  like  manner 
approve  of  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  and  I  do 
solemnly  promise  that  I  will  not  teach  or  inculcate  anything 
which  shall  appear  to  me  to  be  subversive  of  the  said  system 
of  doctrine.  ...  so  long  as  I  shall  continue  to  be  a  professor 
in  this  seminary.” 

Refusal  to  repeat  this  statement  on  the  part  of  the  professor 
meant  immediate  dismissal. 

In  1870,  Union  Seminary  gave  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  the  right  to  veto  appointments  to  its 
faculty.  When,  however,  the  Assembly  attempted  to  use  this 
right  in  the  case  of  Prof.  Briggs,  it  promptly  withdrew  it 
(1892),  and  in  1905  substituted  for  the  standards  which  had 
prevailed  for  fifty  years,  the  colorless  statement  that  “all  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  faculty  shall  satisfy  the  board  of  their  Christian 
faith  and  life.”5 

Whereat,  up  in  Cambridge,  President  Eliot  rubbed  his  hands 
exultingly.  [Eliot.  More  Harvard  Graduates  for  the  Ministry , 
29.] 

“This  action,”  [abolishing  subscription  to  the  Westminster 
Confession],  observed  President  Francis  Brown,  “must  not  be 
understood  as  a  departure  from  the  original  principles  of  the 
seminary.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  their  natural  consummation. 
If  subscription  was  abolished,  it  was  not  that  we  wished  to 
believe  less,  but  that  we  might  be  free  to  believe  more.w<5 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


161 


Certainly  it  has  not  worked  out  that  way ! 

In  the  winter  of  1925  a  student  at  Union  committed  suicide 
and  the  report  went  out  that  in  his  Bible  was  found  written 
opposite  one  of  the  great  resurrection  passages:  “It’s  not  all 

bunk  as  Professor - says.”  It  is  hard  to  think  of  the  head 

of  an  historic  theological  seminary  expressing  doubt  as  to  a 
future  life.  Yet  one  can  with  difficulty  interpret  otherwise  the 
words  of  President  McGiffert,  at  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary 
of  the  founding  of  the  divinity  school  of  the  University  of 
Chicago. 

“During  all  the  Christian  centuries  [the  doctrine  of  immor¬ 
tality]  has  been  regarded  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  religion 
of  such  a  character,  that  doubt  of  it  must  destroy  religious 
faith  altogether.  But  in  recent  years  as  a  result  of  many  influ¬ 
ences,  among  which  the  scientific  tendency  not  to  transcend  the 
limits  of  experience  is  one,  the  belief  in  immortality  has  become 
less  and  less  controlling.  Theologians  are  not  so  inclined  as 
they  once  were  to  dogmatize  upon  the  subject.  The  very  title 
of  a  recent  work  upon  immortality,  The  Christian  Hope ,  by  a 
colleague  of  mine,  illustrates  the  modern  attitude.  Or  one 
may  go  still  further  and  say  that  many  Christians,  because 
the  life  after  death  lies  beyond  the  range  of  experimental 
proof,  have  grown  indifferent  about  it  and  are  turning  their 
attention  to  other  things  of  more  immediate  and  practical 
concern.”7 

Equally  cloudy  is  Dr.  McGiffert’s  testimony  regarding 
theism.  In  his  N.  W.  Taylor  lecture  at  Yale,  1922,  on  “The 
God  of  the  Early  Christians,”  he  defends  the  strange  thesis 
that  “the  early  Gentile  converts  to  Christianity  may  well  have 
taken  Christ  as  their  Lord  and  Saviour  without  taking  his 
God  and  Father  as  their  God.” 

“There  was  no  antecedent  reason,”  he  continues,  “why  the 
Gentile  Christians  should  accept  the  God  of  the  Jews  whom 
Jesus  worshipped  any  more  than  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law 
which  he  observed  and  the  Jewish  practices  in  which  he  was 
brought  up.”8 


162 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


/ 

The  only  motive  for  such  a  strained  construction  seems  to 
be  that  which  Prof.  Machen  finds.  “Dr.  McGiffert  is  seeking 
a  precursor  in  early  Christianity  for  the  non-theistic  modernism 
which  he  himself  holds."9 

It  was  President  McGiffert’s  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic 
Age  which  gave  Dr.  Rihbany  his  first  push  into  Unitarianism.10 
This  book  scissors  the  New  Testament  history  into  shreds.  Let 
us  look  at  a  few  passages. 

Of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  Dr.  McGiffert  says:  “It  is  not  abso¬ 
lutely  certain  that  Jesus  himself  actually  instituted  such  a  sup¬ 
per  and  directed  his  disciples  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance 
of  him  as  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  15  :24.” 

But  what  has  set  this  fact  in  uncertainty? 

The  answer  comes,  “Expecting  as  he  did  to  return  at  an 
early  day  he  can  hardly  have  been  solicitous  to  provide  for  the 
preservation  of  his  memory.” 

The  writer  of  the  Acts  was  far  removed  from  the  time  and 
“could  hardly  avoid  investing  even  familiar  occurrences  with 
marvel  and  mystery.” 

So  of  the  account  of  Elymas.  “It  was  natural  that  Luke 
finding  in  his  sources,  as  he  probably  did,  a  reference  to  Paul’s 
meeting  such  a  man  should  picture  the  scene  as  an  exhibition 
of  the  superior  power  of  Christianity  in  the  very  field  in  which 
Bar  Jesus  and  his  kind  were  most  skilful”  [in  other  words, 
should  concoct  an  appropriate  story].  “He  could  hardly  con¬ 
ceive  of  Paul  as  coming  into  contact  with  such  a  man  and  not 
giving  convincing  evidence  of  his  mightier  control  over  the 
forces  of  nature  and  it  may  have  been  a  denunciation 
by  Paul  of  the  spiritual  blindness  of  the  Magian  that  led 
him  to  suppose  that  the  apostle  inflicted  physical  blindness  upon 
him.” 

Tradition  one  would  think  should,  other  things  being  equal, 
be  entered  upon  the  credit  rather  than  on  the  debit  side  of 
historical  conclusion.  But  this  natural  presupposition  is  re¬ 
versed  in  these  circles:  “The  tradition  which  makes  Luke  the 
author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  book  of  Acts  can  hardly 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


163 


be  maintained.”  “It  is  altogether  improbable  that  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  .  .  .  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  at 
all.  It  is  true  that  ‘pros  Hebraious *  is  found  in  all  our  Mss.  .  .  . 
But  no  weight  can  be  attached  to  it.”  “It  seems  necessary  to 
conclude  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  was  not  identified  with 
the  eyewitnesses  who  appear  in  certain  parts  of  his  book.  .  .  . 
The  admonitions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  in  the  pastoral  epistles 
were  not  really  intended  for  them.  It  looks  very  much  as  if 
they  were  simply  lay  figures  and  the  two  letters  were  intended 
not  for  them  but  for  the  church  at  large.”11 

So  the  sands  shift.  Nothing  is  certain.  Discussion  is  inter¬ 
minable  as  among  the  schoolmen  of  mediaeval  Paris  and  its  un¬ 
supported  assertionalism  finally  brings  one  to  an  impatient  clos¬ 
ing  of  the  book. 

Prof.  Lyman’s  theism  is  as  little  like  New  Testament  theism 
as  President’s  McGiffert’s.  In  his  inaugural  address  in  1918 
he  insisted  that  “the  God  of  a  democratic  theism  will  not  have 
sovereignty  as  his  chief  attribute.  He  will  be  like  Jesus,  some¬ 
times  denied,  sometimes  betrayed.  .  .  .  The  postulate  of  a 
democratic  God  as  the  supreme  power  in  the  universe  can  be 
verified  from  the  facts  of  experience.  .  .  .  The  verification 
consists  in  the  trend  of  evolution  towards  world  democracy. 
...  If  we  feel  in  our  hearts  a  passion  for  democracy  as  the 
richest,  noblest  form  of  human  life;  if  we  are  gaining  some 
clear,  convincing  insight  as  to  how  a  better  democracy  than 
we  now  possess  may  be  achieved  .  .  .  then  we  are  already 
having  the  kind  of  experience  that  belongs  to  a  life  with  God, 
with  the  only  kind  of  God  in  whom,  as  the  defenders  of  the 
democratic  ideal,  we  ought  to  believe. 

“If,  as  we  look  abroad  upon  human  society,  we  see  there  a 
mighty  purpose  to  defend  the  democracy  we  already  have  and 
to  develop  a  new  and  better  one  .  .  .  then  we  have  all  the 
material  we  need  for  the  experience  of  actually  co-working 
with  God  in  the  world.  And  this  experience  so  far  as  it  brings 
new  strength  and  insight  for  social  service  supplies  cumulative 
evidence  for  the  reality  of  a  democratic  God.”12 


164 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


The  address  at  the  opening  of  the  87th  seminary  year  was 
delivered  by  Prof.  Fagnani.  The  Pharisee  of  the  gospel  was, 
for  self-satisfaction,  not  “in  it”  a  moment  with  this  Sadducee. 
“What  is  our  greatest  and  most  fundamental  personal  need? 
I  say  this  with  all  possible  emphasis.  It  is  that  we  should  have 
a  sense  of  our  individual  importance  and  of  the  wealth  of  our 
latent  capacity,  an  impressive  recognition  of  our  personal  worth 
and  consequence. 

“This  indispensable  faith  in  ourselves  is  a  profoundly  religious 
thing,  for  it  is  simply  faith  in  God  our  Heavenly  Father  re¬ 
duced  from  abstraction  and  vain  aspiration  to  practise  and 
actuality.  For  a  man  to  say  he  believes  in  God  and  at  the 
same  time  to  despise  himself  and  feel  only  contempt  or  despair 
for  his  own  possibilities  of  good  and  achievement  is  a  contra¬ 
diction  in  terms.” 

If,  then,  man  is  such  an  admirable  creature,  it  were  folly 
for  him  to  concern  himself  with  salvation  from  his  sins.  “It 
might  be  subject  to  question,”  continues  this  theologian,  “how 
far  one  was  entitled  to  call  himself  a  Christian  in  any  complete 
and  adequate  sense  whose  religion  is  chiefly  concerned  with  his 
personal  salvation  in  another  world  and  with  doctrines,  assent 
to  which  he  therefore  calls  fundamental.”13 

In  the  old  evangelical  days,  professors  at  Union  had  at  times 
literally  to  “raise”  their  own  salaries,  but  the  present  has  a  broad¬ 
er  margin  for  its  page.  The  toilsome  life  in  the  English  Gothic 
buildings  on  Morningside  is  relieved  by  periods  of  travel  abroad. 
Prof.  G.  A.  Johnston  Ross,  returning  from  delightful  sabbatical 
saunterings  in  the  Far  East,  spoke  of  his  observations  there  in 
an  address  at  the  opening  of  the  seminary  in  1921.  The  re¬ 
ligions  of  China  and  Japan  had  made  a  profound  dint  on  his 
thinking.  He  declared  himself  “deeply  impressed  by  the  var¬ 
iety  of  stimuli  used  by  the  Chinese  toward  the  achievement  of 
a  goodness  which  in  numberless  cases  is  unanswerably  authentic 
and  real.” 

Among  these  he  lists  the  cult  of  the  dead,  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  Kwannon  [the  Chinese  Goddess  of  Mercy]  and  of 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


165 


Gautama  Euddha.  “I  believe,”  he  quotes  approvingly,  “that 
long  ago  the  Christ  and  the  Buddha  have  met  in  that  large 
world  of  the  spirit  and  I  cannot  but  believe  that  it  was  a 
meeting  marked  by  mutual  love  and  veneration.  .  .  .  The 
triumph  of  Christ  would  mean  not  the  defeat  of  Buddha,  but 
the  perfecting  of  that  which  Buddha  began.” 

Naturally,  “the  monstrous  menace  of  the  Bible  Union 
League”  should  “be  driven  from  the  mission  field.”  It  would 
imperil  all  such  religious  harmonies. 

Naturally,  too,  conversion  is  as  unnecessary  for  those  at 
home  as  for  the  Chinese.  After  referring  to  the  free-thinkers 
Starbuck,  James,  and  Leuba,  he  continues:  “We  older  men 
see  that  religion  by  convulsion  is  to  give  way  to  religion  by 
education.  ...  I  shall  never  forget — only  elderly  men  here 
can  remember — the  shock  first  of  Starbuck  and  next  of  James. 
At  first  these  people  seemed  to  be  doing  something  worse  than 
botanizing  on  one’s  mother’s  grave.  They  seemed  to  be  im¬ 
piously  endeavoring  to  dissect  not  even  a  human  body,  but  the 
divine  spirit.  Yet  slowly,  slowly,  the  new  learning  began  to  grip. 
One’s  faith  in  cataclysmal  religion  began  to  fail.  One  grew 
ashamed  of  associating  religion  with  abnormal  psychic  states.” 

Current  theology,  he  concludes,  quoting  Prof.  Leuba,  bears  to 
psychology  a  relation  similar  to  that  of  alchemy  to  chemistry.14* 

One  can  but  think  of  that  great  Christian  layman  who  so 
largely  made  it  possible  for  the  present  staff  at  LTnion  to  live, 


*Prof.  Ross  thinks  that  we  must  “secularize  God”  (Horsch,  Mod¬ 
ern  Religious  Liberalism,  121).  President  McGiffert  is  quoted  (R.E., 
June,  ’19,  161)  :  “Democracy  demands  a  God  with  whom  men  may 
co-operate,  not  to  whom  they  must  submit.”  In  his  sermon  at  the 
dedication  of  the  seminary  buildings  Prof.  Coffin  remarked :  “We  have 
lost  in  reverence.  The  Old  Testament  phrase  ‘them  that  fear  Thy 
name’  seems  scarcely  applicable  to  our  religious  experience.  We  have 
lost  the  tone  of  authority  which  conscience  had  when  men  connected 
it  directly  with  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne.  And  above  all  we 
have  lost  that  definite  consciousness  of  our  personal  relationship  with 
God  which  comes  very  near  to  being  the  essence  of  vital  religion. 
Indeed,  there  is  much  Christianity  which  it  would  not  be  wholly  false 
to  describe  as  godless. 

“They  whose  legatees  you  and  I  are  were  not  worshippers  of  an 
unnamed  deity.  They  knew  him  far  too  personally  for  that.” 


166 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


the  elder  Wm.  E.  Dodge,  a  Union  director  for  twenty-seven 
years.  Dr.  Prentiss,  the  historian  of  the  seminary,  says  of 
him: 

“He  cherished  a  profound  conviction  of  the  reality  and 
desirableness  of  revivals.  He  constantly  prayed  for  them  and 
when  he  found  himself  in  the  midst  of  them,  his  whole  mind 
and  heart  were  stirred.  The  evangelistic  labors  of  such 
men  as  Nettleton,  Finney,  and  Moody,  had  his  warmest  sym¬ 
pathy.”15 

The  protagonist  of  these  psychological  theories  at  Union  is 
Prof.  G.  A.  Coe  of  the  department  of  religious  education  and 
psychology.  His  point  of  view  is  quickly  determined '  by  ref¬ 
erence  to  two  books,  The  Religion  of  a  Mature  Mind  and 
The  Psychology  of  Religion.  God  is  immanent,  hence  “there 
can  be  no  higher  destiny  or  duty  for  us  than  just  to  be  our 
whole  selves.”  Naturally,  then  prayer  for  help  from  without 
becomes  a  futile  thing.  “In  God’s  order  the  world  is  to  be 
made  over  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ  not  by  the  easy  way 
of  begging  the  Almighty  to  do  the  work,  but  by  the  vastly 
harder  road  of  doing  it  ourselves.”  There  can  be  no  talk  here 
of  the  school  of  prayer.  Even  though  “prayer  is  one  of  the 
characteristic  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  yet  the  increasing  assim¬ 
ilation  of  his  teaching  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  takes  the  em¬ 
phasis  out  of  our  own  prayers.”  “The  belief  in  the  immanence  of 
God,”  says  Prof.  Coe,  “has  a  wondrous  power  of  dissolving 
things.”  Sure  enough  and  here  are  some  of  the  things  which 
have  gone  into  the  crucible.  “We  have  learned  that  Monday 
is  as  holy  as  Sunday;  that  doing  the  duties  of  life  is  as  religious 
as  prayer;  that  God  is  as  near  to  us  in  the  merchandise  as  in 
the  communion  cup.”  The  sense  of  sin,  too,  is  gone.  “One 
may  be  pardoned  for  doubting  whether  it  ever  did  work  the 
great  good  that  has  been  attributed  to  it.”  This  “is  not  to  be 
interpreted  as  a  hardening  of  conscience.  The  decline  in  the 
sense  of  sin  and  a  growth  in  the  sense  of  Christian  duty”  have 
an  essential  relation.  It  is  “the  displacement  of  a  lower  by  a 
higher  type  of  Christian  experience.” 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


167 


“The  Christian  consciousness  is  moving  toward  a  point  where 
the  supreme  question  of  life  will  be  not,  ‘Am  I  saved?’  but, 
rWhat  am  I  good  for?’  .  .  .  The  modern  man  cannot  be 
scared  by  the  thought  of  death  or  judgment.  Naturally,  then, 
we  do  not  catch  our  breath  at  the  thought  of  what  may  be. 

.  .  .  God  is  an  ideal  socius,  rather  than  monarch.” 

There  is  nothing  sacrosanct  in  religion  which  “science”  is 
not  justified  in  examining  and  explaining.  It  has  “no  claim  to 
exemption  from  this  taking  to  pieces.”  All  can  be  accounted 
for  on  anthropological  genetic  grounds.  Baptism  is  a  residual 
of  lustration,  the  Lord’s  Supper  of  the  totemistic  eating  of  the 
god.  “From  purification  ceremonies  intended  to  remove  the 
effects  of  broken  taboo  grew  the  notion  of  a  purification  of  the 
heart.  Spells  and  incantations  grew  into  prayers  for  favor; 
these  grew  into  aspiration  for  universal  righteousness.”  It  is  as 
plain  as  the  nose  on  the  face.  “Christians  who  refuse  to  pray 
except  in  the  name  of  Jesus  display  [benighted  creatures]  an  atti¬ 
tude  that  is  obviously  a  survival  of  the  magical  use  of  names.” 

Repentance  and  conversion  are  susceptible  to  psychological 
explanation.  “The  twice-born  type  which  is  characterized  by 
acute  and  persistent  feeling  of  powerlessness  to  unify  one’s  life 
with  consequent  yielding  up  of  self  to  some  supposedly  external 
‘redemptive’  person  ...  is  probably  determined  by  some  per¬ 
sistent,  though  not  yet  defined,  physiological  depression.”  The 
joy  which  often  accompanies  conversion,  this  materialist  com¬ 
pares  with  the  feeling  of  exaltation  which  follows  awakening 
from  anaesthesia.  “It  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  effect 
of  religious  laughing  gas.” 

Prof.  Coe  minimizes  conversion  at  every  point.  The  regen¬ 
eration  of  down-and-outs  at  the  Water  Street  mission  is  merely 
the  resurgence  from  the  subconscious  of  the  religion  of  child¬ 
hood.  Here  as  elsewhere  the  subconscious  explains  all.  Re¬ 
ligious  impressions  such  as  that  this  or  that  is  one’s  duty,  that 
God  is  personally  present,  that  this  or  that  is  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  are  reduced  to  subconscious  products.  The  conviction 
of  answered  prayer  is  really  auto-suggestion.  Prof.  Coe 


168 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


describes  the  stages  of  self-hypnotization.  “He  begins  with  some 
idea  of  God  .  .  .  received  from  instruction  or  from  current 
tradition.  He  commonly  retires  to  a  quiet  place  or  to  a  place 
having  mental  associations  of  a  religious  cast  in  order  to  ‘shut 
out  the  world.’  This  beginning  of  concentration  is  followed 
by  closing  the  eyes  which  excludes  a  mass  of  irrelevant  im¬ 
pressions.  The  body  bows,  kneels,  or  assumes  some  other  posture 
that  requires  little  muscular  tension  and  that  may  favor  exten¬ 
sive  relaxations”  .  .  .  and  so  on. 

“Religion  is  wholly  within  the  natural  psychological  order,” 
is  the  affirmation  of  Prof.  Coe.  The  supernatural  in  Paul’s 
career  [perhaps  in  our  Lord’s  too]  is  reducible  to  psychopathic 
explanation.  There  are  “signs  of  neurotic  make-up  in  Paul 
and  Mohammed”  far  more  abundantly  than  in  Jesus.  “Paul 
had  a  luxuriant  experience  of  the  sort  of  automatisms  that 
might  have  made  him  a  great  leader  of  the  shamanistic  type. 
[Shamans  are  Mongolian  devil  priests  and  exorcists.]  Though 
he  [Jesus]  appears  to  have  experienced  some  automatisms  that 
he  interprets  as  special  divine  impartations,  these  were  not  the 
staple  of  his  reliance  for  himself  or  for  others.  That  is,  of 
shamanism  there  are  only  minor  traces .  Neither  Jesus  nor 
Buddha  was  made  weak  or  inefficient  by  automatisms  that  he 
may  have  experienced;  neither  trafficked  in  them  after  the 
manner  of  the  Shaman.” 

Prof.  Coe  is  engaged  in  preparing  teachers  in  religion  for 
the  young  of  the  country.  He  is  one  of  the  lights  of  the 
Religious  Education  Association.16 

I  wonder  if  Prof.  Scott  had  his  colleague  Prof.  Coe  in  mind 
when  he  remarked,  “The  new  intellectual  currency  consists  for 
the  most  part  of  raw  theories  and  catchwords  which  have  just 
about  the  same  value  as  Russian  paper  money.  There  is  a 
general  feeling  that  all  our  counsellors  are  lying  to  us.  .  .  . 
even  professors.  ...  It  is  only  the  New  Testament  that  speaks 
the  truth.” 

Yet  what  kind  of  a  New  Testament  does  Prof.  Scott  leave 
us?  In  his  inaugural  in  1919  he  declared  it  “a  fact  no  longer 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


169 


to  be  questioned”  that  “some  of  our  cherished  Christian  be¬ 
liefs  are  in  part  a  heritage  from  ancient  paganism.”  “We  can¬ 
not  unreservedly  accept  the  testimony  of  the  fourth  Gospel  on 
any  matter  of  historical  fact.”  “The  fourth  evangelist  was  not 
one  of  the  original  witnesses  of  the  life  of  Jesus.”  This  gospel 
“lacks  the  warm  colors  and  definite  outlines  of  personal  rem¬ 
iniscence.”  Just  what  Profs.  Torrey  and  Montgomery,  how¬ 
ever,  do  find  in  it.  “It  is  not  the  life  of  Jesus  which  is  set 
before  us  but  the  history  of  the  Logos.”  .  .  .  The  stories  of 
the  baptism,  the  temptation,  the  agony,  the  cry  from  the  cross 
“could  not  be  reconciled  with  the  theory  of  the  Logos  and  had 
therefore  to  be  omitted.  Place  is  given  to  the  mystical  ideas 
which  had  already  begun  to  grow  up  around  the  Lord’s  Supper 
under  the  influence  of  Greek  and  Oriental  theosophy.” 17 

“It  is  sometimes  with  a  pang  that  we  see.  conclusions  which 
it  took  a  century  to  reach,  going  back  into  the  melting  pot,” 
says  Prof.  Scott.  Union  has  for  a  generation  been  a  centre  for 
this  futile  theorizing.  “The  God  of  all  grace  who  hath  called 
us  into  his  eternal  glory  .  .  .  establish,  strengthen,  settle  you.” 
That’s  the  ideal  for  a  school  set  to  train  leaders  for  the  church. 

It  was  an  ideal  up  to  which  the  great  Andover  master  John 
Adams  lived  and  which  ennobled  the  career  of  his  son,  President 
W.  A.  Adams  of  Union.  Prof.  Wm.  Adams  Brown  is  in  the 
blood  succession  of  these  two  saints.  He  teaches  theology  in 
present-day  Union.  In  an  article  in  the  Harvard  Theological 
Review  he  tells  us  how  he  once  walked  the  midnight  streets 
of  New  York  with  Dr.  Grenfell  in  earnest  discussion.  Sud¬ 
denly  Grenfell  stopped  abruptedly  with  the  words,  “I  wish  I 
were  back  in  Labrador.  It  is  much  easier  to  know  what  is 
right  in  Labrador  than  it  is  in  New  York  city.” 

No  wonder  he  was  confused.  Back  in  the  fifties  Prof.  Henry 
B.  Smith  had  said,  “The  great  alternative  of  our  time  is  Christ 
or  Spinoza.”  Prof.  Brown  by  affirming  that  “God  is  not 
thought  of  as  separate  from  the  universe,  but  rather  as  its  im¬ 
manent  law”  definitely  aligns  himself  with  the  Amsterdam  Jew. 
The  consummatum  est  of  Calvary  has  no  meaning  for  him. 


170  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

“Salvation  is  not  an  act  wrought  once  for  all  in  some  tran¬ 
scendent  realm.  It  is  a  process  going  on  through  the  ages  and 
rooted  as  truly  as  sin  itself  in  the  nature  of  man.  Atonement 
is  not  the  great  exception.  It  is  the  universal  law  of  true  liv¬ 
ing.”  18  One  cannot  better  characterize  the  theology  of  present- 
day  Union  than  in  the  inaugural  words  of  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith 
in  1855 :  “The  terms  of  specific  Christian  truth  may  be  retained, 
but  their  soul  is  eaten  out  by  a  strange  fire.  ...  A  parasitic 
naturalism  is  feeding  its  own  life  with  the  grace  which  it 
supplants.”19 

Prof.  H.  S.  Coffin,  in  an  address  at  the  seminary,  speaks  of 
the  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth  as  “an  absurdly  unimportant 
heresy.”20  Prof.  Fosdick’s  rejections  of  Christian  truth  are 
public  property.  A  stenographer  sent  into  his  class  room  brought 
out  a  flat  repudiation  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord. 

“Wheresoever  the  carcass  is.  .  .  .”  The  bones  of  Andover 
have  been  picked  white.  The  Unitarians  are  now  gathering 
about  Union.  One  notices  announcements  of  lectures  by  Drs. 
W.  L.  Sullivan  and  F.  G.  Peabody;  of  John  Haynes  Holmes, 
J.  H.  Randall  and  S.  A.  Eliot  conducting  prayers  in  the  sem¬ 
inary  chapel.  President  Eliot’s  name  appears  on  the  letter-head 
of  the  new  endowment  campaign.  The  English  free-thinker 
Conybeare  is  invited  to  lecture  to  Union  students;  also  Prof. 
Lake  of  the  Harvard  Theological  School. 

Out  of  this  atmosphere  and  saturated  with  teaching  such 
as  has  been  quoted  come  the  youngsters  to  plague  the  church. 
Knowles  Taylor,  a  Union  founder,  wrote  in  the  early  days, 
“When  you  become  an  old  gray-headed  Elder  and  meet  in  the 
General  Assembly  the  men  who  received  their  education  at 
our  seminary  and  hear  them  magnify  the  Word  of  God  and 
see  that  they  are  sound  and  faithful  Bible  teachers,  you  will 
rejoice  and  bless  God  for  what  you  see  and  hear.”21  How 
different  the  fact!  Union  graduates  are  the  perplexity  of  or¬ 
daining  councils.*  Yet  they  make  their  way  into  the  strategic 

*“I  am  about  to  be  graduated  from  an  undenominational  seminary,” 
writes  one  of  these  Union  seniors,  the  Rev.  A.  A.  Hunter  in  the  Century 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


171 


places  of  the  church.  The  alumni  catalogue  gives  their  present 
status — presidents  and  professors  of  mission  colleges,  teachers 
in  theological  seminaries,  Bible  professors  in  colleges,  directors 
of  religious  education,  Y.  M.  C.  A.  leaders.  One  of  the  ob¬ 
jectives  of  the  recent  four  million  dollar  drive  has  been  the  erec¬ 
tion  of  buildings  to  accommodate  thirty  missionary  families  home 
on  furlough. 

*  *  *  * 

The  first  two  chapters  of  the  official  history  of  the  University 
of  Chicago  describe  with  unedifying  detail  the  patient  steering 
by  which  the  goldfish  was  finally  landed.  When  news  of  the 
Rockefeller  gift  came  to  the  Baptists  gathered  in  national  con¬ 
vention  at  Boston  the  entire  assembly  rose  with  the  doxology 
on  its  lips  and  Dr.  Henson  exclaimed,  “I  scarcely  dare  trust 
myself  to  speak.  I  feel  like  Simeon  when  he  said,  ‘Now,  Lord, 
lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  thy  salvation.’  ”  22 

The  gift  called  for  additional  givers.  To  clinch  the  $600,000 
a  general  collection  of  $400,000  was  required.  Appeals  were 
sent  to  1,200  Baptist  pastors  throughout  the  West.  The  second 
Sunday  in  April  was  made  “University  Day.”  “Preach  the 
sermon  if  your  salary  is  in  arrears  and  finances  lagging,”  was 
the  mot  d’ordre.  “Contribute  to  the  cause  of  Christian  culture.” 

The  promise  dangled  before  the  country  churches  was  “a 
great  Christian  university”  to  counteract  the  materialism  of 
the  Middle  West.  The  churches  responded  admirably.  “Not 
only  have  the  well-to-do  given  liberally,  but  those  of  lesser 
means,  and  even  the  poor  out  of  their  hard-won  savings.” 
Baptist  people  in  Chicago  subscribed  $233,000,  one  church 

Magazine,  June  1923.  “I  hate  stiff-necked  doctrine  just  as  cordially  as 
do  the  rest  of  us  who  are  under  thirty.  .  .  .  We  find  ourselves  curiously 
bold  in  our  irreverence.  ...  As  one  hoping  to  enter  the  ministry  I 
should  leave  the  church  if  I  thought  it  would  prove  to  be  such  a  hope*- 
less  embalming  institution,”  etc.  Mr.  Hunter,  who  has  been  six  years 
in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  in  the  East  and  who  praises  Chinese  students  because 
of  their  apostolic  zeal  for  science,  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  “one  who  met 
men  eating  and  drinking,  quick  with  redemption,  exuberant  with  laugh¬ 
ing  humor,  gesturing  with  immense  great  jollity  as  he  made  fun  of  the 
pious  sticklers  who  strained  at  a  gnat  only  to  swallow  a  camel.” 


172 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


giving  $80,000,  another  $50,000,  another  $20,000,  and  a  fourth 
$7,000,  and  all  the  rest  in  proportion  to  ability.23 

If  they  could  have  but  looked  forward  to  Foster  and  Case; 
to  Dewey’s  philosophy  and  Watson’s  “Behaviourism”  ;*  to  Loeb 
and  Leopold! 

Dr.  Augustus  H.  Strong,  who  was  influential  in  the  promo¬ 
tion  of  the  university  for  Christian  ends,  gives  in  some  un¬ 
published  notes  the  impression  of  his  first  contacts  with  it.  The 
buildings  were  being  constructed  on  Sundays  as  well  as  on  week¬ 
days;  in  chapel  during  the  summer  of  ’93  the  services  were 
punctuated  by  the  thunder  of  trunks  of  World  Fair  guests 
coming  from  and  going  to  Sunday  trains.  At  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
he  heard  Prof.  Shorey  explaining  that  “the  Greeks  had  all 
that  was  important  to  religion  and  in  fact  that  Socrates  and 
Plato  were  in  some  respects  in  advance  of  Christ.”  Materialism 
early  soaked  into  every  nook  and  corner  of  the  university. 
President  Harper  confessed  this:  “The  problem  of  the  uni¬ 
versity’s  religious  life,”  he  saj^s,  “weighed  on  me  more  heavily 
than  any  other  connected  with  the  office  which  I  have  been 
called  to  administer.  I  have  noticed  that  with  each  recurring 
year  it  has  required  a  greater  effort  on  my  part  to  undertake 
this  kind  of  service  [chapel  talks].  I  have  asked  myself  whether 
as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  growing  more  and  more  difficult  to 
deal  with  subjects  of  this  kind  in  a  university  atmospherc.”t 

The  Baptists  of  the  West  had  their  well-established  theo¬ 
logical  seminary  with  a  student  body  of  190  and  assets  amount- 


*J.  M.  Aldrich  writing  in  the  Christian  Register,  1922:251,  says  of 
Prof.  Watson:  “John  Broadus  Watson  was  from  a  strong  Baptist  family 
and  a  South  Carolina  college.  I  presume  he  kept  his  religion  at  least 
that  far.  Then  he  went  to  the  University  of  Chicago  and  specialized 
in  psychology,  getting  a  doctor’s  degree  and  losing  his  religion  some¬ 
where  on  the  way.  In  his  book  Behavioristic  Philosophy  he  announced 
that  he  had  found  the  term  consciousness  unnecessary.  Well,  it  happened 
that  his  book  was  just  nicely  before  the  public  when  the  papers  carried 
the  announcement  that  the  trustees  of  Johns  Hopkins  university  had 
accepted  his  resignation  for  cause.  It  is  not  a  pleasant  story.” 

tPresident  Harper  no  doubt  did  his  share  in  opening  the  dikes  but 
he  regretted  the  consequences  all  in  apparent  unconsciousness  of  what 
he  had  done. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


173 


ing  to  a  half  million,  the  Baptist  Union  Seminary  at  Morgan 
Park.  Its  president  was  Dr.  Northrop,  an  able  and  devout 
theologian.  Mr.  E.  Nelson  Blake,  who  had  secured  its  con¬ 
siderable  endowment,  was  an  evangelical  Baptist  and  Bible 
teacher  of  sixty  years  standing.24 

Unfortunately  by  the  terms  of  the  Rockefeller  gift  this 
seminary  was  incorporated  into  the  university.  “Mr.  Rocke¬ 
feller  builded  if  not  better,  yet  more  broadly  than  he  knew,” 
is  the  Unitarian  comment.25  Precautions  were  indeed  taken  to 
ensure  the  denominational  character  of  the  university.  Three- 
fifths  of  the  trustees  were  to  be  Baptists  and  the  title  to  the 
land  on  which  the  University  is  built,  was  to  revert  to  the 
Baptist  Education  Society  if  this  clause  were  violated.  “In  this 
particular  this  charter  shall  be  forever  unalterable.”26 

The  trustees  have  remained  Baptist  but  hardly  the  theolo¬ 
gians,  save  in  name.  Prof.  G.  B.  Foster  while  teaching  in  this 
Baptist  seminary  was  pastor  of  the  Unitarian  church  at 
Madison,  Wisconsin.27  Prof.  Haydon*  has  succeeded  him  at 

“It  would  be  curious  and  something  very  sad,”  he  wrote,  “if  the 
institutions  founded  by  our  fathers  as  training  schools  for  Christian 
service  should  come  to  be  centers  of  influence  destructive  to  that  same 
Christianity.  The  first  purpose  of  the  college  was  the  defense  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  together  with  the  education  of  men  to  foster  its  interests.  No 
one  will  deny  that  this  purpose  has  been  most  effectively  realized  during 
the  past  two  centuries  of  church  and  college  history. 

“But  what  is  the  situation  today?  Is  it  true  that  there  has  been  a 
remarkable  decrease  in  the  actual  teaching  of  Christian  truth  while 
a  large  and  growing  emphasis  has  been  placed  upon  the  teaching  of 
branches  which  are  altogether  devoid  of  religious  character?  Yes.  Is 
it  true  that  of  the  students  who  enter  college  only  a  meagre  few  look 
forward  to  Christian  service  of  any  kind,  the  larger  number  having  as 
a  matter  of  fact  but  the  slightest  interest  in  religious  matters?  Yes.  Is 
it  certainly  a  fact  that  many  men  and  women  who  enter  college  aa 
Christian  workers  in  their  home  churches  take  little  or  no  active  part 
in  church  life  after  they  have  completed  their  college  work?  Yes. 

“There  has  been  a  peculiar  and  a  fatal  lack  of  proper  religious 
instruction  for  the  young  during  the  past  twenty  years  and  we  are  just 
beginning  to  feel  its  terrible  effects.” — Religion  and  the  Higher  Life,  132. 

*At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Western  Conference  [Unitarian], 
1922,  Prof.  Havdon  began  his  address  by  stating  that  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Hyde  Park  Baptist  church,  pastor  of  the  Madison  Unitarian 
church  and  devoting  his  life  to  teaching  the  non-Christian  religion  of 
the  future.  C.R.  1922:601. 


174 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Madison  while  lecturing  on  comparative  religion  in  the  sem¬ 
inary.  A  third  Baptist,  Prof.  Merrifield,  occupies  a  chair 
in  the  New  Testament  and  on  Sundays  is  preacher  in  All 
Souls  Unitarian  church.28  Prof.  Soares,  who  is  a  favorite  in 
Unitarian  pulpits  and  Unitarian  lecture  courses,  is  quoted  in 
the  Christian  Register  as  saying  of  himself,  “Why  should  a 
person  withdraw  from  his  denomination?  To  withdraw  means 
that  his  denomination  means  something  to  him  when  it  does 
not.”129  “The  organ  of  the  seminary,  The  Biblical  World!' 
also  remarks  the  Christian  Register ,  “is  as  far  from  conformity 
to  Baptist  doctrines  as  the  deliverances  from  Ford  Hall.”30 
The  Unitarian  seminary  at  Meadville,  Pa.,  transfers  its  whole 
student  body  summer  times  to  the  University  of  Chicago  and 
is  to  be  merged  with  the  Baptist  divinity  school  as  soon  as 
the  objections  of  certain  Unitarians  are  overcome.31  These 
circumstances  naturally  make  the  school  useless  for  evangelical 
Christians  and  this  is  practically  acknowledged  in  a  signed 
statement  of  Dr.  Burton  and  Dr.  Padelford,  president  and 
secretary  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Board  of  Education: 

“The  Divinity  School  of  the  University  of  Chicago  is  largely 
a  graduate  school.  Only  a  small  percentage  of  its  students  are 
preparing  for  the  pastorates  of  our  churches.  Moreover  this 
school  frankly  and  unequivocally  represents  only  one  group  of 
churches  in  our  denomination.  This  group  is  large  and  import¬ 
ant  and  must  have  a  school  for  the  adequate  training  of  its 
ministry. 

“On  the  other  hand  the  great  majority  of  our  churches  in 
the  Middle  West  are  of  a  conservative  type  and  they  need  and 
have  a  right  to  an  institution  which  shall  train  ministers  for 
their  churches.  .  .  .  We  believe  that  if  by  some  wise  measures 
such  an  institution  could  be  established,  the  denomination 
would  stand  back  of  it  with  men  and  money. 

“Baptists  will  always  need  different  types  of  schools  because 
such  a  denomination  as  ours  will  always  be  composed,  as  it 
always  has  been,  of  people  of  different  types  of  thought.  .  .  . 
By  our  very  constitution  we  cannot  dictate  the  thinking  of 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


175 


our  scholars  and  our  teachers.  We  should  cease  to  be  Baptists 
if  we  did,  but  we  must  always  insure  that  the  great  groups 
among  us  have  adequate  institutions  for  the  thorough  training 
of  a  ministry.  The  Board  of  Education  hopes  the  denomination 
will  give  serious  heed  to  this  suggestion.”  32 

In  other  words,  their  Middle  West  seminary  having  been, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  Unitarianized,  Baptists  are  officially 
urged  to  collect  funds  to  establish  a  new  one  to  take  its 
place. 

In  1921  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Northern  Baptist 
Convention  to  examine  into  the  religious  conditions  prevailing 
in  schools  founded  and  controlled  by  the  denomination.*  This 
would  seem  to  be  a  legitimate  procedure  in  view  of  current 
complaints  regarding  them,  but  the  committee  had  to  report 
that  on  every  side  they  were  characterized  as  “inquisitors.”33 
The  Unitarian  organ  was  especially  violent  concerning  these 
internal  affairs  of  the  Baptists.  The  heads  of  the  schools,  how¬ 
ever,  gave  frank  and  cordial  answers  with  the  exception  of 
President  Faunce  of  Brown,  who  declared  the  inquiry  “an 
attack  both  upon  education  and  religion.”  “Never  since  the 
days  of  Roger  Williams,”  he  continued,  “has  so  open  an 
attempt  been  made  to  force  under  financial  penalty  the  Baptists 
of  the  country  to  adopt  a  series  of  dogmas  in  writing.” 

The  Divinity  School  of  the  University  of  Chicago  defined 
itself  as  “the  contribution  of  the  Baptist  denomination  to  the 
theological  education  of  the  country,”  rather  than  as  a  denom¬ 
inational  institution,  certainly  an  accurate  confession.  As  to 
its  general  attitude  toward  the  Christian  faith  it  affirmed  that 

*“It  was  alleged  that  many  of  our  young  men  and  women  brought  up 
in  Christian  ways  and  full  of  Christian  zeal  have  gone  to  college  and 
at  the  completion  of  their  course  have  returned  home  with  their  Chris¬ 
tian  faith  impaired  and  their  confidence  in  the  Scriptures  shattered; 
that  many  of  the  young  men  appearing  before  councils  for  examination 
with  a  view  to  ordination  to  the  ministry  have  shown  an  utter  lack  of 
conviction  concerning  the  very  things  they  were  to  preach  .  .  .  that 
often  the  teachers  in  schools  endowed  by  Baptist  money,  supported  by 
Baptist  influence  and  contributions,  have  shown  scant  respect  for  what 
has  always  been  the  rule  of  faith  and  practise  among  Baptist  people.” — 
Annual  of  Northern  Baptist  Convention,  1921,  40. 


176 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


“we  teach  our  students  to  study  the  Bible  reverently.  ...  We 
bring  them  directly  to  the  Bible  in  order  that  with  the  guidance 
and  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  may  experience  its  inspiration. 
.  .  .  We  teach  our  students  to  recognize  and  conserve  the 
truth  expressed  in  this  historic  document.” 35 

A  Guide  to  the  Study  of  the  Christian  Religion  is  a  joint 
production  of  this  divinity  faculty  and  gives  a  fair  measure 
wherewith  to  test  its  answer  to  the  denomination  on  whose 
past  self-denials  it  lives.  One  is  struck  with  the  lack  of  Chris¬ 
tian  insight  displayed;  at  times,  too,  with  the  writers’  hostility 
to  the  obvious.  These  men  have  no  perceptible  love  for  Christ. 
Their  whole  interest  in  him  seems  to  be  in  the  problems  which 
he  starts  or  may  be  made  to  start.  Sometimes  their  theorizings 
are  sheerly  frivolous.  Dean  Mathews  speaks  about  the  “bour¬ 
geois  social  mind”  as  controlling  the  Christian  interpretation 
of  the  past  generation.  “There  resulted  from  the  interplay  of 
Christianity  with  this  new  spirit  an  emphasis  on  the  atonement 
largely  in  commercial  terms  which  was  to  have  much  the  same 
influence  in  religion  as  the  bourgeois  movement  has  exercised 
in  politics.”36  This  theory  belongs  to  the  category  of  the 
Kaivorepov ,  indeed,  but  not  of  the  true.  No  serious  man  would 
think  of  defending  it.  To  J.  M.  Powis  Smith  we  are  indebted 
for  this  gem:  “The  Hebrews  were  never  far  removed  from 
starvation.  It  may  well  be  that  this  lack  of  things  material 
contributed  much  toward  the  development  of  spiritual  riches.” 
Any  way  but  by  divine  inspiration  to  account  for  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  religion!  “The  Hebrews  were  given  no  extraordinary 
or  abnormal  aids  or  advantages  not  within  the  reach  of  other 
men  then  as  now,”37  is  Prof.  Smith’s  ipse  dixit.  The  adoption, 
the  glory,  the  covenants,  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  all  the 
rest  in  Paul’s  list,  were  no  aids  to  sanctity  compared  with 
short  rations.  Like  intellectual  parvenus  generally  these  Chicago 
theologians  ever  choose  that  which  is  most  paradoxical  and 
furthest  from  tradition.  It’s  a  poor  method  for  getting  at  truth. 

It  would  be  hard  to  find  anything  more  supercilious  than 
the  attitude  which  Prof.  Case  assumes  towards  our  Lord.  In 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


177 


his  book,  The  Millennial  Hope,  he  speaks  of  him  as  “an  im¬ 
pressive  individual,”  and  in  another  passage,  “To  this  mighty 
Christ  the  angelic  choir  renders  fulsome  praise,  ascribing  to 
him  honor  and  glory  and  eternal  dominion.” 38  Yet  he  grants 
that  “Jesus’  actual  contribution  to  the  rise  of  Christianity  is 
really  more  significant  than  might  at  first  appear,”  and  then, 
adjusting  his  glasses,  “There  is  much  to  prove  that  his  life 
was  one  of  rich  spiritual  attainments.” 

“Jesus,”  he  tells  us  elsewhere,  “is  commonly  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  the  Christian  movement.”  But  one  should  be  on 
one’s  guard  against  attributing  too  much  to  him.  There  was 
a  “natural  disposition  to  seek  the  authority  of  Jesus”  for  later 
developments.  When  baptism  was  made  a  feature  of  church 
life  he  was  represented  as  having  “accepted  baptism  by  John.” 
“The  last  meal  which  Jesus  had  eaten  informally  with  the 
disciples  now  came  to  be  viewed  [falsely,  of  course]  as  the 
deliberate  establishment  of  a  Christian  rite.  .  .  .  Similarly, 
after  the  leaders  of  the  new  movement  rather  tardily  arrived 
at  the  conviction  of  a  world-wide  mission,  they  felt  assured  that 
Jesus  himself  had  intended  this  result  and  had  in  fact  com¬ 
missioned  them  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations.” 

Pauline  Christianity  made  large  drafts  upon  contemporary 
paganism.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  but  a  reflection  of 
similar  myths  related  of  pagan  gods  and  heroes.  The  worship 
of  Lord  Serapis  and  Lady  Isis  gave  the  pattern  for  the  dei¬ 
fication  of  Jesus.  The  “simple  recipe  ‘If  thou  shalt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that 
God  raised  him  from  the  dead  thou  shalt  be  saved’  ”  echoes 
the  formulas  of  pagan  cults.  “Our  sources  of  information  re¬ 
garding  Jesus  are  all  interpretive  in  character”  and  “if  we 
are  to  get  at  the  picture  of  the  historical  Jesus  which  lies  buried 
beneath  this  mass  of  accretion,  we  must  use  rigid  critical 
processes.”39 

And  so  forth. 

In  a  Religious  Education  Association  address  (R.  E.  1910: 
84)  Dean  Shailer  Mathews  told  his  fellow  educationists,  “The 


178 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


theology  of  democracy  has  yet  to  be  written.  Whereas,  Calvin¬ 
ists  spoke  of  God’s  election  of  man,  the  democrat  speaks  of 
man’s  election  of  God.  The  democratic  spirit  of  the  age  is 
demanding  that  the  church  abandon  sovereignty  as  the  con¬ 
trolling  concept  of  its  theology  and  leaven  itself  with  democ¬ 
racy.”40  This  shrill  note  and  Lilliputian  gesture  appear  in  most 
of  these  liberal  disquisitions. 

Thus  Prof.  G.  B.  Smith,  systematic  theologian  of  Chicago 
University,  tells  us  that  “the  phrase,  the  sovereignty  of  God, 
harks  back  to  the  days  of  belief  in  the  divine  right  of  kings. 
But  today  we  believe  in  a  democratic  form  of  government 
which  allows  citizens  to  call  rulers  to  account.  If  criticism  is 
a  valuable  moral  asset  in  our  political  life  can  we  exclude  it 
from  religious  thinking?  May  we  not  demand  that  God  shall 
be  required  to  receive  the  moral  approval  of  men?  This  spirit 
of  democracy  with  its  insistance  on  the  rights  of  men  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  the  current  protests  against  such  ideas  as  .  .  .  that 
he  has  a  right  to  insist  on  some  rigid  plan  of  salvation  purely 
because  he  has  chosen  this  rather  than  any  other  plan.” 

The  Bible  has  no  authority  for  our  day.  It  has  ceased  to 
be  a  lamp  to  our  feet  and  a  light  to  our  path.  “It  has  been 
assumed,”  says  Prof.  Smith,  “that  a  study  of  the  Bible  would 
adequately  prepare  one  to  live  a  moral  life.”  Nothing  is  further 
from  the  truth.  “So  long  as  we  are  pursuing  the  devious  ways 
of  attempting  to  solve  modern  moral  problems  by  a  study  of 
precepts  addressed  to  other  times  and  other  occasions,  we  shall 
reap  the  harvest  of  moral  confusion.”41 

Redemption  is,  according  to  another  of  these  Chicago  pen - 
seurs ,  Prof.  Soares,  an  obsolete  fancy.  “We  no  longer  think 
of  salvation  as  dependent  upon  the  acceptance  of  certain  re¬ 
demptive  facts.”*  The  Bible  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  “a 

*Prof.  Albion  W.  Small  writes:  “This  is  a  vicarious  world,  but  not 
as  stupidly  conceived  by  mediaeval  theologians,  who  located  the  one 
vicarious  act  of  importance  in  the  death  on  the  cross.  Life  is  vicarious 
in  that  its  processes  begin,  continue,  and  end  with  exchanges  of  sacrifice 
wherever  there  are  moral  beings.” — Quoted  in  Ellwood,  Reconstruction, 
178. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


179 


repository  of  redemptive  facts.”  “The  idea  that  the  principal 
business  of  the  church  is  to  get  people  converted  or  committed 
to  the  Christian  life,”  is  properly  branded.  “As  if  anything 
significant  were  accomplished  by  this  one  moment  of  decision.” 
Who  would  be  so  unenlightened  as  to  think  that  the  conversions 
of  Paul  and  Augustine  and  Luther  and  Bunyan  and  Wilber- 
force  had  any  meaning  for  human  history.  “The  great  Sunday- 
school  world  is  getting  away  from  the  idea  of  evangelizing 
children” ;  and  most  significant  of  all  “the  great  Student  Move¬ 
ment  throughout  the  world  has  given  up  the  old  appeal  en¬ 
tirely.”  Prof.  Soares  thinks  of  revelation  as  self-deception. 
“The  message  which  is  ‘received’  is  usually  a  body  of  ideas 
suggested  to  the  mind  by  the  current  state  of  affairs.  It  is 
in  other  words  a  sub-conscious  inference  from  situations.” 
To  this  is  “Thus  spake  the  Lord”  reduced  in  south  Chi¬ 
cago.42 

The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion ,  by  the  late  George 
B.  Foster,  can  be  considered  as  a  sort  of  official  pronouncement 
of  the  theology  of  this  divinity  school  since  it  was  issued  in 
commemoration  of  the  first  decade  of  the  university’s  existence. 
It  is  a  book  which  would  have  warmed  the  bloodless  heart  of 
Voltaire.  “An  intelligent  man  who  now  affirms  his  faith  in 
miracle  can  hardly  know  what  intellectual  honesty  means.” 
The  hypothesis  of  God  has  become  “superfluous  in  every  science, 
even  that  of  religion  itself.”  The  supernatural  Christ  is  com¬ 
pared  to  Santa  Claus.  “Ontologically  Santa  Claus  is  unreal, 
but  morally,  so  to  speak,  he  is  the  most  real  being  in  the  world, 
since  he  is  the  embodiment  and  personification  of  the  most  real 
and  most  worthy  sentiments  and  services  of  the  human  heart. 
Similarly  the  Messianic  idea  stood  for  realities  which  supplied 
the  dynamic  for  a  people’s  whole  career.” 

“Jesus  did  not  transcend  the  limits  of  the  purely  human. 
He  did  not  put  himself  alongside  the  Almighty  God.  He  never 
thought  of  ascribing  a  pre-mundane  existence  to  himself:  nor 
did  he  claim  to  be  judge  of  the  world.”  It  is  doubtful  if  he 
ever  “called  himself  the  Son  of  man.” 


180 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Foster  speaks  of  the  “wooden  conception  of  his  abstract  sin- 
lessness.”  “Jesus  confronts  us  as  knowing  what  sin  was,  know¬ 
ing  too  not  from  divine  omniscience.  .  .  .  The  idea  of  the 
absolute  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  no  result  of  historical  study. 
It  is  simply  sanctimonious  superficiality  to  spirit  away  his 
words,  ‘Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?’  ”  “He  did  not  con¬ 
sider  his  own  nature  to  be  different  in  essence  from  that  of  other 
men.” 

The  New  Testament  story  of  supernatural  birth,  miracle, 
resurrection,  is  “an  antiquated  affair,  a  relic  that  is  worthless 
to  the  cultivated  classes [Prof.  Foster  was  a  West  Virginian 
poor  white  living  by  collecting  ginseng  before  he  became  a 
Chicago  pundit.]  “Christological  dogmas  really  signify  for 
many  children  of  our  time  a  sarcophagus  of  the  personality  of 
Jesus.  .  .  .  One  flees  from  it  as  from  a  ghost.  .  .  .  Historical 
science  must  repudiate  the  entire  supernaturalist  position”  in 
the  matter  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  The  task  of  historical 
science  is  “to  blast  and  tunnel  through  the  solidified  Pauline 
construction  to  the  real  Jesus  of  Nazareth.”  But  “not  only 
in  primitive  Christianity,  but  even  in  the  words  and  ideas  of 
Jesus  there  is  a  plus  which  does  not  belong  to  the  eternal  and 
essential  gospel.  ...  To  erect  independently  of  experience  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  as  such  into  a  norm  of  life  for  every  time 
and  place  is  immoral 

“The  picture  which  Jesus  inherited  of  the  world  and  its 
processes  is  gone  forever.  We  cannot  entice  it  from  the  Dead 
Sea  of  the  past  and  we  would  not  if  we  could.  .  .  .  We  have 
at  length  learned  that  to  have  faith  does  not  mean  to  hold  a 
set  of  opinions;  does  not  even  mean  to  think  what  Jesus 
thought.” 

“Jesus  knew  nothing  of  many  of  the  moral  and  social  tasks 
which  today  we  cannot  escape.  He  had  a  view  of  the  world 
which  made  him  indifferent  to  the  great  historical  future  of 
society.”  He  was  in  other  words  a  provincial  with  all  sorts 
of  limitations,  “a  child  of  his  time,  a  merely  human  Christ 
who  does  no  more  and  no  less  than  interpret  to  us  the  eternal 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


181 


revelation  of  God  in  human  nature.”  To  this  shrivels  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  whom  Foster  impertinently  describes  as  “this  super¬ 
human  entity  with  his  epiphany  and  his  performances.” 

All  of  which  is  the  stalest  Unitarianism.*43 

Prof.  E.  S.  Ames  is  pastor  of  the  Hyde  Park  church  of  the 
Disciples  as  well  as  professor.  His  utterances  are  of  the  same 
type,  but  expressed  in  psychological  phrasing.  The  traditional 
God  is  an  impossible  concept.  “No  such  static,  transcendent, 
non-empirical  reality  is  conceivable  by  usT  i.  e.,  by  the  “leaders 
of  modern  thought.” 

“In  a  despotic  society,  where  sovereignty  is  idealized,  to 
think  of  God  means  to  humble  one’s  self,  to  take  on  the  posture 
and  employ  the  phrases  which  a  menial  uses  in  the  presence 
of  his  lord.  .  .  .  But  where  the  idea  of  God  is  the  em¬ 
bodiment  of  ideals  arising  from  democratic  social  move¬ 
ments,  its  presence  in  the  mind  expresses  itself  in  motor 
reactions  indicative  of  respect  for  the  welfare  of  all  members  of 
society.” 

When  we  pray,  we  are  really  praying  to  a  secondary  per¬ 
sonality  within  the  recesses  of  our  human  being.  “Prayer  is  a 
natural  expression  of  the  social  character  of  all  consciousness. 
.  .  .  The  conscious  life  of  the  individual  is  largely  an  interplay 
between  the  different  selves  of  his  different  attitudes  and  habits. 
These  argue,  confer,  advise,  and  contend,  with  each  other,  quite 
as  actual  people  do.  These  selves  may  be  exalted  moral  beings 
with  which  the  lesser  selves  of  one’s  actual  temper  and  deeds 
seek  communion  and  from  which  they  petition  aid  of  every 
kind. 

*It  was  of  this  book  that  a  Chicago  daily  wrote:  “We  are  struck 
also  with  the  hypocrisy  and  treachery  of  these  attacks  on  Christianity. 
This  is  a  free  country  and  a  free  age  and  men  can  say  what  they  choose 
about  religion  but  this  is  not  what  we  arraign  these  divinity  professors 
for.  Is  there  no  place  in  which  to  assail  Christianity  but  a  divinity 
school  ?  Is  there  no  one  to  write  infidel  books  except  the  professors  of 
Christian  theology?  Is  a  theological  seminary  an  appropriate  place  for 
a  general  massacre  of  Christian  doctrines?  .  .  .  We  are  not  champion¬ 
ing  either  Christianity  or  infidelity,  but  only  condemning  infidels  mas¬ 
querading  as  men  of  God  and  Christian  teachers.” — Quoted  in  Horsch, 
Modern  Religious  Liberalism ,  276. 


182 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


‘‘One  particular  type  of  self  often  becomes  the  standard 
for  the  individual  and  this  self  is  largely  or  solely  formed  upon 
the  model  of  some  definite  historical  or  imaginary  character. 
Where  this  is  true,  prayer  may  attain  all  the  vividness  of  per¬ 
sonal  communion,  even  including  hallucinations  and  visions  in 
which  the  ideal  personality  speaks  to  one  or  intervenes  in  one’s 
behalf.” 

If  theism  evanesces  into  mere  egotheism,  all  the  phenomena 
of  Christian  experience  will  naturally  be  explained  as  psychic 
reaction.  So  Prof.  Ames  tells  us  that  “hysteria  and  other  nerv¬ 
ous  and  circulatory  disorders  are  common  causes”  of  the  sense 
of  sin.  “The  methods  and  many  conversions  of  revivals  are 
essentially  the  methods  and  effects  of  hypnotism.”  The  Spirit 
of  God  does  not  mould  and  appeal  to  human  hearts.  There 
is  no  Spirit  of  God  as  commonly  understood.  “In  a  certain 
sense  the  religious  life  is  an  irradiation  of  the  reproductive 
instinct.”  Conversion  is  a  phase  of  adolesence.  “One  of  the 
most  significant  and  best  established  facts  which  the  new  science 
of  psychology  of  religion  has  discovered  is  that  conversion  be¬ 
longs  primarily  to  the  years  between  ten  and  twenty-five.” 
“The  expression,  ‘The  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,’ 
represents  experience  common  to  automatism,  trances,  etc.,  in 
primitive  religions.  Paul  was  probably  a  neurotic;  Augustine 
a  sensualist  with  a  highly  developed  nervous  temperament.  It 
is  apparent  that  there  were  very  special  individual  reasons  for 
their  dramatic  conversions.”44 

The  physicists,  the  astronomers,  the  biologists,  are  making 
discoveries.  The  liberal  theologians  must  not  drop  behind.  So 
we  have  the  “new  science  of  the  psychology  of  religion.”  Prof. 
Sylvanus  Thompson  remarks  of  a  psychologist  of  vogue,  “The 
new  psychologists,  of  whom  we  have  in  William  James  the 
most  shining  example,  tickle  our  ears  with  the  jargon  in  which 
they  dress  up  half-ascertained,  half-known  facts  on  the  borders 
of  our  consciousness  and  manufacture  an  exact  science  out  of 
the  very  elements  of  inexactness.”  I  wonder  what  he  would 
say  of  Professors  Coe,  Ames,  and  Starbuck. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


183 


Prof.  H.  L.  Willett  is  in  the  divinity  school  of  the  Disciples 
affiliated  to  Chicago  University.  He  holds  to  the  conventional 
opinions  and  to  quote  him  would  be  but  to  repeat.  “Every 
miracle  and  every  prophecy  could  be  eliminated  from  the 
Scripture  and  its  supreme  values  would  not  be  disturbed,”  he 
writes  in  “Our  Bible.”  Our  Lord  expounded  to  the  two  on 
the  Emmaus  road  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
Himself.  But  he  was  mistaken  in  his  fancies.  “There  is  not,” 
says  Prof.  Willett,  “an  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  any 
such  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus  that  holds  to  any  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  passage  the  relation  of  fulfilment  to  prediction.”  Prof. 
Willett  holds  low  views  of  the  Decalogue.  In  “The  Moral 
Leaders  of  Israel”  he  tells  us  that  “the  first  commandment 
inculcates  the  intolerance  of  Jehovah  which  is  characteristic 
of  the  Hebrew  religion.”  Novel  interpretations  are  worked  out. 
The  still,  small  voice  is  not  that  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  “Wind, 
earthquake  and  fire — spasmodic  violence — should  give  way  to 
a  quiet  planning.  The  new  way  to  dispose  of  Baalism  is  a 
series  of  well-laid  and  executed  plots.”45 

The  lofty,  patronizing  note  is  heard  in  Prof.  Goodspeed’s 
Story  of  the  New  Testament.  “Though  Christians  in  increasing 
numbers  may  no  longer  attach  to  it  [the  New  Testament]  the 
dogmatic  values  of  the  past,  they  will  never  cease  to  prize  it 
for  its  inspiring  and  purifying  power  and  for  its  simple  and 
moving  story  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.”  The  Gospel  of  Matthew 
was  written  by  a  Jewish  Christian  who  preferred  to  remain 
unknown,  not  by  the  apostle;  First  Peter  by  a  Christian  elder 
of  Rome,  it  is  not  possible  otherwise  to  say  whom;  John  by 
that  elder  of  Ephesus  who  wrote  the  three  letters,  not  by  the 
apostle,  and  so  on.  The  modes  on  the  current  fashion  plates 
are  strictly  followed  in  Chicago.*48 

♦The  University  of  Chicago  seminary  is  preparing  a  foreign  export 
business  in  these  ideas.  With  the  Chicago  Congregational  seminary,  now 
closely  attached  to  it,  it  “is  building  up  a  School  of  Missions  second 
to  none  in  the  country.  It  is  significant  that  over  sixty  missionaries  and 
their  wives  have  been  in  residence  during  all  or  part  of  the  current 
year.  Especially  attractive  are  these  courses  to  students  planning  to 


184 


The  Leaven  of  the  S adduce es 


Such  is  the  teaching  which  the  theologians  of  the  University 
of  Chicago  seek  to  inject  into  the  churches.  As  it  becomes 
clearer  what  they  are  up  to,  opposition  increases.  The  Rev. 
A.  W.  Wishart,  trained  in  this  seminary,  declared  at  a  Re¬ 
ligious  Education  Convention,  “If  all  the  seminaries  were 
suddenly  to  become  thoroughly  modern  in  spirit  and  teaching, 
most  of  their  graduates  would  find  themselves  without  charges. 
In  all  probability,  organized  opposition  to  the  seminaries  would 
arise  and  new  seminaries  would  be  established  to  supply  the 
churches  with  the  kind  of  ministers  they  desired.  .  .  .  We 
need  more  advanced  ministers  with  religious  fervor  and  broad 
training  who  will  lovingly ,  but  firmly ,  brave  opposition  of  the 
misguided  masses  in  the  struggle  to  promote  true  religion  among 
men. 

The  pigs  must  be  driven  into  the  right  pens. 

But  suppose  the  churches  prove  incorrigible  ?  One  way  would 
be  to  insist  by  law  that  the  ministers  receive  the  right  kind  of 
training.  The  Rev.  Allan  Hoben,  a  former  member  of  the 
Chicago  divinity  faculty  and  now  president  of  the  Baptist 
college  at  Kalamazoo,  makes  a  suggestion  of  this  sort.  There 
are  too  many  graduates  from  those  dreadful  Bible  institutes 
in  the  ministry.  “Public  opinion,  which  is  becoming  increasingly 
sensitive  to  the  inutility  and  costliness  of  a  ministry  over¬ 
crowded  by  those  who  are  unfit  and  therefore  obstructive  to 
a  united  community  effort  for  good,  will  demand,  perhaps  by 
law ,  a  more  adequate  education  for  the  professional  religious 
teacher.  ...  The  assumption  of  a  social  task  as  a  life-calling 
must  not  be  the  presumption  of  ignorance  or  weak  sentimen¬ 
tality,  but  the  rational  service  of  an  enlightened  and  trained 
mind. 

“If  from  the  viewpoint  of  democracy  the  church  is  a  public 
utility,  collecting  large  sums  of  money  and  aiming  to  render 

devote  their  lives  to  educational  missions. ”  (Chicago  Theological  Sem¬ 
inary  Register,  13,  26.)  It  has  (as  Union  and  Harvard)  devised 
"elaborate  plans  for  drawing  into  its  enrolment  choice  students  from 
all  parts  of  the  earth.” — Kelly,  Theological  Seminaries  in  America,  104. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


185 


services  from  which  the  state  deliberately  refrains,  has  the  state 
the  right  to  demand  anything  by  way  of  standardization  or 
efficiency  of  those  services  and  to  expect  a  wise  and  reasonable 
use  of  the  money  solicited  from  the  citizens?”*48  Obviously, 
yes!  Fair  play  to  givers  has  ever  been  the  historical  enthusiasm 
of  these  Chicago  University  divines. 

The  first  $7,500  for  their  divinity  school  was  collected  by 
Nathaniel  Colver,  a  powerful  Puritan  figure,  who  because  of 
lack  of  early  opportunity  used  to  describe  himself  as  “a  graduate 
of  the  brush-heap.”  Before  teaching  at  the  seminary,  he  organ¬ 
ized  training  classes  for  prospective  ministers  in  his  own  home, 
and  among  his  students  were  D.  L.  Moody  and  H.  C.  Mabie. 


*This  book  is  a  University  of  Chicago  publication  in  religious  educa¬ 
tion  “to  be  used  by  thoughtful  parents  and  in  midweek  meetings.”  Dr. 
Hoben  believes  that  the  prevention  of  sins  “is  more  important  than 
their  forgiveness  and  that  prevention  is  in  a  very  large  measure  pos¬ 
sible,”  141.  Well-done  work  by  a  child  in  poultry  raising,  etc.,  presents 
“a  way  of  expressing  his  obedience  to  God  in  terms  which  are  for  him 
perhaps  more  suitable  than  public  prayer.”  The  Benedictines  with  their 
laborare  est  orare  have  nothing  on  the  president  of  Kalamazoo  College. 
Of  children’s  gardens  he  says:  “Probably  there  is  no  more  satisfactory 
and  timely  religious  exercise  for  the  child  of  this  age  than  to  co-operate 
with  God  in  producing  the  food  that  is  necessary  to  life,”  39.  On  page 
116  he  suggests  that  there  should  be  a  program  of  better  social  diversion 
“to  redeem  the  dance.”  The  president  of  Kalamazoo  stands  shoulder 
to  shoulder  with  the  emerited  president  of  Harvard  who  closes  an 
essay  on  the  Wise  Direction  of  Church  Activities  with  the  super-wise 
remark,  “I  was  once  asked  if  there  was  any  study  which  I  should  be 
willing  to  have  required  of  every  student  in  Harvard  College.  After 
a  moment’s  reflection  I  said  I  thought  there  was  one,  dancing.” 

“Here  is  one  of  the  most  serious  things.  We  are  letting  into  the 
Baptist  ministry  a  very  large  percentage  of  men  who  have  no  ability 
to  discriminate  between  science  and  literature,”  says  one  of  the  denom¬ 
inational  shepherds,  Dr.  Shailer  Mathews,  to  the  assembled  theologians 
at  Rochester  Seminary.  The  churches  must  be  taught  to  select  the 
approved  brand.  At  the  same  conference  Dr.  Padelford  complained 
that  in  two  training  schools  in  Chicago  last  year  there  were  151  Baptist 
men  preparing  for  the  ministry,  more  than  the  total  student  body  of 
Colgate,  Rochester,  and  Berkeley  combined.  These  scabs  must  learn 
their  place.  “Some  drastic  action  may  be  necessary  before  this  condition 
can  be  cured.  If  we  would  set  up  a  definite  standard  of  admittance 
to  our  ministry  and  require  men  to  secure  a  thorough  training  before 
they  could  be  ordained  we  should  reduce  the  over-supply  and  eliminate 
many  unqualified  men ;  we  should  create  a  healthier  attitude  in  the 
churches  towards  the  ministry.” — Rochester  Theological  Bulletin,  68th 
year,  No.  1,  42  and  53. 


186 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


His  ministerial  institutes  in  the  Middle  West  were  famous. 
Dr.  Clough  modelled  similar  ones  for  the  Telegus  upon  Col¬ 
vin’s  lines.  Work  at  Richmond,  Va.,  for  education  of  negro 
ministers  filled  his  last  years  with  usefulness.40 

But  Colvin  would  have  received  scant  tolerance  from  the 
theologians  who  now  dominate  the  school  he  founded.  Indeed, 
the  educational  machine  of  the  denomination  is  moving  in  a 
way  to  weed  out  such  men  and  to  give  Baptists  a  theological 
closed-shop.  A  two  years  course  of  study  is  proposed  for  all 
candidates  for  ordination.  State  conventions  are  asked  to  pass 
resolutions  refusing  financial  aid  to  churches  which  shall  not  in 
the  future  conform  to  these  educational  standards.  Ministerial 
passports  are  to  be  required  for  those  moving  from  one  Asso¬ 
ciation  to  another.  There  are  to  be  committees  appointed,  in 
each  state  convention,  on  ministerial  standing  to  make  inquisi¬ 
tion  as  to  the  educational  status  of  ministers.  Ministers  who 
have  failed  to  comply  with  minimum  requirements  for  ordina¬ 
tion  are  to  be  refused  aid  from  ministers  and  missionary  benefit 
funds.50 

The  full  import  of  this  scheme  is  obvious  in  the  recom¬ 
mendation  that  state  conventions  avail  themselves  of  seminary 
help  in  preparing  and  directing  pre-ordination  courses  of  study 
for  those  who  have  not  had  seminary  training.  The  nature 
of  this  training  can  be  fairly  judged  from  the  reading  courses 
which  these  seminaries  have  drawn  up  for  ministers. 

Ten  years  ago  Newton  Theological  Institution  published  one 
such  in  its  official  bulletin  [Vol.  6,  No.  2,  Feb.  1914]  “for 
Newton  students  and  alumni  and  Baptist  ministers  generally” 
with  the  expressed  “hope  that  these  recommendations  will  lead 
to  wider  and  more  intelligent  reading  and  will  add  many 
permanently  valuable  books  to  pastors’  libraries.”  This  list  is 
a  sort  of  theological  toxicology;  also  an  appropriate  comment 
on  the  trustees’  insistence  that  it  is  “immoral”  to  question  the 
evangelical  loyalty  of  the  teaching  in  Newton  seminary.  Toy, 
Driver,  Moore,  Peake,  Sabatier,  Duhm,  C.  F.  Kent’s  His¬ 
torical  Bible ,  are  all  commended — Kent’s  Life  and  Teach - 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


187 


ings  of  Jesus  as  “the  best  brief  exposition  of  the  more  liberal 
view.”  Then  there  is  Fowler’s  History  of  the  Literature  of 
Ancient  Israel  [“exceedingly  fascinating”],  O.  Holtzmann  and 
Bousset  [“very  suggestive”],  the  Philosophy  of  Religion  of  the 
Danish  free-thinker  Harald  Hoffding  [“valuable”],  the  Psy¬ 
chology  of  Religion  by  the  free-thinker  Starbuck  [“in  the  study 
of  conversion  experience,  this  book  stands  unrivalled”],  the 
works  of  the  atheist  Leuba,  Ames’  Psychology  of  Religious 
Experience  [“an  illuminating  and  scholarly  work”],  the  works 
of  G.  A.  Coe  [“all  his  books  repay  careful  reading”],  Pratt’s 
Psychology  of  Religious  Belief .  Hinckley  Mitchell  and  G.  A. 
Gilbert,  both  tipped  out  of  seminaries  as  theologically  impos¬ 
sible,  find  favor  in  the  Newton  book  list.* 

The  Rochester  Theological  Seminary  prints  its  list  also 
[R.  T.  S.  Bulletin ,  73rd  year,  No.  1],  With  most  of  the 

♦The  Newton  faculty  recommends  to  Baptists  the  book  which  caused 
the  departure  of  Prof.  Gilbert  from  the  Congregational  seminary  in 
Chicago.  “Almost  everything  in  the  narrative  of  the  birth  and  infancy 
of  Jesus,  the  resurrection  and  various  of  the  narratives  of  the  ministry 
are  relegated  to  the  realm  of  legend.”  Yet  after  his  dismissal  Prof. 
Gilbert  was  chosen  to  lead  the  New  Testament  courses  in  the  Biblical 
World  of  the  University  of  Chicago  and  his  offending  book  receives 
Newton’s  commendation.  C.R.  1912:1070  and  1913:38. 

Of  The  Man  of  Nazareth  by  Prof.  F.  L.  Anderson  of  Newton  the 
Christian  Register  says,  “If  a  Trinitarian  wrote  these  chapters  the  most 
critical  Unitarian  will  not  discover  it.  Even  the  chapter  on  the  finality 
of  Jesus  .  .  .  contains  nothing  which  the  readers  of  the  Christian 
Register  would  not  call  perfectly  good  Unitarianism.”  1913:87. 

What  valuation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  do  the  following  banal 
sentences  suggest?  “Jesus  seems  not  to  have  had  the  slightest  trace 
of  our  modern  neurasthenia,”  190.  “Jesus  knew  God  as  well  as  he 
knew  his  mother,”  169.  Of  the  double  nature  of  Christ  Dr.  Anderson 
says:  “This  Jesus,  now  God,  now  man,  is  thus  alien  to  us  and  we 
instinctively  feel  that  he  cannot  truly  sympathize  with  us  in  our  temp¬ 
tations,  struggles,  and  sorrows.  .  .  .  This  dictum  of  fourth  century 
theologians  cannot  be  made  binding  on  free  Protestant  Christians  and 
is  entirely  out  of  tune  with  modern  feeling  and  conceptions.” 

These  are  the  tactics  which  Methodist  modernists  also  are  using. 
The  obligatory  study  course  prescribed  for  Methodist  ministers  has 
been  their  point  of  attack.  A  thousand  men  take  this  annually  and 
nearly  750  are  graduated  from  it  into  the  pulpits  of  Methodism,  many 
more  than  all  the  Methodist  seminaries  together  send  out  each  year.  “If 
the  rationalist  element  can  control  these  courses,”  writes  Dr.  Harold 
Paul  Sloan,  “they  will  quickly  control  the  preaching  emphasis  of  Meth¬ 
odism  and  practically  destroy  the  church’s  doctrinal  foundation.” 


138 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Newton  favorites,  one  gets  in  addition  Troeltsch,  G.  B.  Foster 
[excluded  from  the  Chicago  Baptist  ministers’  association  for 
his  anti-Christianity],  Piepenbring,  K.  Lake,  Wernle,  Morgan. 
Of  the  free-thinker  H.  G.  Wells’  Outline  of  History ,  this 
bulletin  says,  “Its  tremendous  suggestiveness  makes  it  indis¬ 
pensable  to  the  modern  minister.”  Case’s  Millennial  Hope 
“will  prove  of  great  value.”  A  special  list  by  Prof.  Moehlmann 
commends  the  History  of  New  Testament  Criticism  by  the 
free-thinker  Conybeare,  and  What  Jesus  Taught  by  Prof. 
Slaten,  of  whose  crypto-Unitarian  mole-work  we  have  spoken. 


The  selection  of  books  is  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  appointed 
by  the  Methodist  board  of  education.  Of  this  commission  Prof.  H.  F. 
Rail  is  described  as  the  leading  spirit.  [“Dr.  Rail  has  been  the  high- 
priest  of  the  course  of  study  which  has  given  conservative  Methodists 
so  much  concern.  He  is  a  very  skilful  gentleman  and  enjoys  the  right 
of  way  with  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  and  the  church  official  papers 
so  as  to  publish  everything  he  wants  to  favorable  to  the  new  theology 
propaganda.” — Dr.  Ridout  in  Pentecostal  Herald,  June  22,  1921.] 
The  books  chosen  have  been  chiefly  of  the  ephemeral  “modern”  sort — 
Elwood,  Soares,  Rauschenbusch,  Faunce,  Hyde,  Rail,  McGiffert,  W.  N. 
Clarke,  Betts,  Meyer,  Weigle,  Coe,  Athearn,  E.  C.  Hayes,  Gladden, 
W.  Walker. 

The  general  Conference  of  1920  adopted  Dr.  Sloan’s  resolution  re¬ 
quiring  that  “only  such  books  as  are  in  full  and  hearty  accord  wTith 
these  doctrines  and  that  outline  of  faith  established  in  the  constitution 
of  the  church  .  .  .  shall  be  included  in  the  conference  course.”  Certain 
of  these  books  have  been  withdrawn ;  others  remain  in  violation  of  the 
express  decree  of  the  General  Conference.  When  Dr.  Sloan  made  his 
statement  regarding  the  course  of  study  all  the  Methodist  papers  excepf 
the  Methodist  Review  refused  to  print  it  and  Zion’s  Herald,  so  Dr. 
Sloan  tells  us,  while  attacking  the  writer,  declined  to  publish  the  crit¬ 
icism  which  was  the  subject  of  the  attack.  There  is  no  doubt  where 
the  official  machine  stands. — Sloan,  The  New  Infidelity,  24. 

Protests  have  come  to  the  bishops  from  conferences  in  many  parts  of 
the  country.  They  complain  of  a  study  course  for  preachers,  class-leaders, 
and  deaconesses  with  no  history  of  Methodism,  no  book  on  Scripture 
interpretation,  no  book  on  the  discipline;  which  omits  Wesley’s  sermons 
altogether  and  which  chiefly  stresses  the  fad  literature  of  the  day  in 
sociology  and  pedagogy.  Some  petition  the  bishops  to  resume  control 
of  the  course. 

“What  our  church  wants  to  know,”  writes  one  keen  Methodist  leader, 
“is  whether  our  deaconesses  through  these  new  studies  will  know  how 
to  find  in  Isaiah  the  right  chapter  to  read  and  to  explain  to  a  dying 
woman  with  an  unbelieving  husband  and  heart-broken  children  at  her 
bedside,  rather  than  to  discuss  whether  there  wrere  one,  two,  or  three 
Isaiahs.” 

But  the  arid  doctrinaires  of  modernism  never  think  of  such  situations. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


189 


The  trivial  little  book  of  W.  N.  Clarke,  Sixty  Years  with  the 
Bible ,  receives  extravagant  praise  in  Prof.  Parsons’  list. 

These  are  the  seminaries  whose  greedy  hands  were  stretched 
out  to  take  $800,000  (Newton)  and  $500,000  (Rochester) 
from  the  self-denial  and  missionary  zeal  of  Baptists  in  the  years 

1919-24* 

Rochester  Theological  Seminary  was  built  up  into  a  power¬ 
ful  and  useful  institution  by  Dr.  Augustus  H.  Strong,  backed 
by  a  group  ©f  laymen,  Messrs.  Trevor,  Milbank,  Ployt,  and 
the  elder  Rockefeller.  For  many  years  it  provided  the  Baptist 
churches  with  loyal  pastors  and  missionaries.  But  a  change 
has  come  over  its  teaching.  In  his  unpublished  autobiography, 
Dr.  Strong  lays  this  at  the  door  of  Prof.  George  Cross.  “The 
result  of  the  election  of  Dr.  Cross,”  he  says,  “has  been  the 
resignation  of  some  members  of  the  committee  and  the  with¬ 
drawal  of  others  from  active  service.  I  regard  that  election 
as  the  greatest  calamity  that  has  come  to  the  seminary.  It 
was  the  entrance  of  an  agnostic,  skeptical,  and  anti-Christian 
element  into  its  teaching,  the  results  of  which  will  be  only 
evil.  The  election  of  Dr.  Cross  was  followed  by  that  of  Pro¬ 
fessors  Robins,  Parsons,  and  Nixon,  who  sympathized  with 
these  views.  These  men,  with  Prof.  Moehlmann,  soon  gave 
evidence  in  their  utterances  that  a  veritable  revolution  had 
taken  place  in  the  attitude  of  the  seminary  towards  the  funda¬ 
mentals  of  the  Christian  faith. ”f 

*So  in  the  Newton  Bulletin,  Vol.  8,  No.  4,  p.  4:  “We  need  $100,000 
to  endow  a  department  of  religious  education.  Its  services  in  our 
churches  should  be  the  contribution  of  the  seminary  to  the  work  of 
raising  the  standard  of  Sunday  school  instruction  in  our  New  England 
churches.  The  work  of  such  a  man  w’ould  be  of  inestimable  value  to 
our  churches.”  The  productive  assets  of  Newton  are  about  one  million; 
of  Rochester  nearly  two.  Newton  receives  a  yearly  grant  of  $10,000 
from  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention. 

fThe  Rev.  Russell  Brougher,  graduated  from  Rochester  in  the  class 
of  1922,  told  how  he  had  been  officially  called  to  account  for  giving 
to  outsiders  points  as  to  the  teaching  of  the  seminary.  “In  the  course 
of  this  reproof  the  statement  was  made  that  Rochester  Seminary  was 
in  a  war  and  that  to  give  out  facts  to  those  upon  the  other  side  was 
in  the  nature  of  spying.  Here  is  indeed  a  startling  situation  when  a 
school  of  the  Christian  church  feels  called  upon  to  keep  its  teachings 


190 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


That  Dr.  Strong  has  not  overstated  the  facts,  is  clear  enough 
from  a  casual  reference  to  Prof.  Cross’s  Creative  Christianity 
[delivered  at  Yale  on  the  N.  W.  Taylor  Foundation!]  Dr. 
Cross  has  the  reverence  for  the  “young  college  people”  which 
liberal  theologians  often  exhibit.  “We  must  make  up  our 
minds  that  their  interpretation  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  of 
life  in  general,  will  be  very  different  from  that  which  was 
given  to  us  by  the  fathers.”  Does  he  have  as  great  confidence 
in  the  sayings  of  our  Lord?  Hardly.  “If  all  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  were  brought  together  in  the  exact  form  in  which  he 
gave  them  there  might  be  found  among  them  some  that  would 
not  commend  themselves  as  fixed  and  final  to  the  faith  of  the 
most  intelligent  and  devout  Christians  of  the  present  day. 
Men  cannot  be  called  upon  to  believe  things  simply  because  of 
the  name  that  is  attached  to  them.” 

The  great  assumption  of  modernism  runs  through  this  book. 
“Every  one  so  trained  [i.  e.,  scientifically]  must  place  a  note 
of  interrogation  after  all  the  biblical  accounts  of  miracles.” 
“The  scientifically  trained  college  man  of  today”  distinctly 
disallows  the  existence  of  miracles.  This  “youth  of  scientific 
training”  would  class  the  miracles  of  Christ  “with  the  folklore, 
legends,  or  mythology  he  had  already  found  in  the  traditions 
of  other  religious  faiths.” 

But  why  limit  this  enlightenment  to  the  youth  of  American 
colleges?  M.  Parrot,  French  mission  teacher  in  Madagascar, 
has  described  the  convulsions  of  laughter  into  which  savages 
of  the  island  went  when  he  described  to  them  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  There  are  naked  modernists  as  well  as  modernists 
in  shorts  and  sweaters. 

The  picture  of  Jesus  which  the  New  Testament  gives  us  is 
not  actual.  It  is  rather  the  impression  made  on  his  milieu 
modified  by  the  traditions  and  fancies  of  that  milieu.  The 
regard  of  Christ’s  following  “was  not  the  wondering  admiration 

secret  and  when  a  student  is  charged  with  unfair  conduct  for  making 
them  public.” — H.  P.  Sloan,  The  New  Infidelity  and  the  New  Reforma¬ 
tion,  10. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


191 


of  some  abstractly  perfect  character,  such  as  recluses  of  old 
or  sentimentalists  of  our  time  might  dream  of.  Nor  was  it 
sublime  approval  of  the  sentiments  he  was  said  to  be  continually 
expressing.  This  would  mean  little  more  than  to  say  that  he 
pleased  them  because  he  was  so  much  like  themselves ,  as  they 
pictured  themselves  at  their  best  ” 

“Christ  is  presented  [by  the  historic  theology]  as  an  eternal 
divine  personality  whose  abode  is  in  a  different  realm  from  ours 
and  whose  higher  nature  is  an  inscrutable  mystery  to  us.  His 
appropriation  to  himself  of  an  impersonal  human  nature  was 
in  order  that  in  it  this  divine  person  whose  nature  is  impassible 
might  suffer  redemptively  for  men.  His  whole  career  is  inter¬ 
preted  as  furnishing  evidence  that  it  was  so  and  his  death  was 
an  event  of  an  order  that  pertained  exclusively  to  himself.  .  .  . 
How  artificial  this  entire  construction  seems  to  us  now.  How 
we  miss  the  humanness  of  Jesus  as  he  sought  to  fulfil  the  im¬ 
perative  of  his  own  self-legislative  potencies  and  felt  his  way 
to  perfection  as  we  must  do.  ...  We  are  left  in  ourselves 
without  the  crown  of  personality  when  we  are  made  solely 
beneficiaries  of  his  atonement.” 

The  plan  of  salvation  is  then  a  factitious  futility.  There  is 
nothing  to  be  saved  from  or  saved  to.  “The  attempts  to  bring 
the  lives  of  men  in  this  world  under  control  by  appealing  to 
the  definitely  known  results  in  the  after  life  have  lost  their 
force  in  a  large  measure  and  in  the  more  intelligent  circles  this 
kind  of  appeal  is  seldom  resorted  to.”  “The  native  sphere  of 
the  operation  of  the  Christian  spirit  is  in  the  forms  of  the 
community  life  native  to  humanity.  There  we  find  our  better 
world  in  making,  and  if  we  find  it  not  there  we  find  it  no¬ 
where.” 

There  is  no  real  distinction  between  “the  saved”  and  “the 
unsaved.”  Nor  is  it  even  necessary  that  there  be  any  organiza¬ 
tion  whatsoever  of  the  Christian  communion  as  a  separate 
institution.  In  the  natural  institutions  of  men  are  to  be  found 
“the  moulds  in  which  this  higher  spiritual  force  is  to  find  its 
most  effective  mode  of  action.  .  .  .  These  are  to  become  the 


192 


The  Leaven  of  the  S adduce es 


organs  of  the  higher  life  and  they  are  to  have  the  character 
which  the  church  has  been  in  the  habit  of  claiming  for 
itself.” 

So  then,  the  Church  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  is  a  superfluous  thing,  and  it  is  through  constitutions 
and  political  parties,  soviets,  and  Tammany  Hall,  and  trades- 
unions,  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  to  come.  Why,  then,  does 
this  church-salaried  and  long-vacationed  theological  professor 
not  abandon  his  church  position  and  attach  himself  to  those 
“moulds  of  spiritual  life,”  which  are  so  much  more  to  his 
liking?51 

Another  Rochester  Seminary  professor,  Dr.  W.  Rauschen- 
busch,  delivered  the  N.  W.  Taylor  lectures  in  1917.  Prof. 
Rauschenbusch  spoke  sjunpathetically  of  “the  blessed  skepticism 
of  the  Age  of  Enlightenment,”  and  his  own  skepticism  often 
bears  the  eighteenth  century  stamp.  Calvary  has  no  unique 
significance.  “What  the  death  of  Jesus  now  does  for  us,  the 
death  of  the  prophets  did  for  him.  None  of  the  later  theories 
of  atonement  are  taught  or  even  touched  on  in  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  except  perhaps  the  Lord’s  Supper.”  He  apparently  regrets 
Christ’s  death  as  untimely  and  premature.  “In  thirty  years  of 
additional  life,  Jesus  could  have  put  the  imprint  of  his  mind 
much  more  clearly  on  the  movement  of  Christianity  and  pro¬ 
tected  it  from  the  profound  distortions  to  which  it  was  sub¬ 
jected,”  i.  e.,  by  Paul  and  the  other  apostles. 

Nor  has  the  communion  any  importance  in  the  Christian 
life.  “It  is  a  question  whether  Jesus’  thought  ran  beyond  the 
group  of  his  friends  when  he  asked  for  a  repetition  of  the  meal,” 
as  if  our  Lord  never  anticipated  world-wide  discipleship.  “The 
personality  of  Jesus  was  an  achievement,  not  an  effortless  in¬ 
heritance.  .  .  .  The  inclination  early  set  in  to  eliminate  the 
element  of  temptation,  of  effort,  of  vigorous  action  and  reaction, 
and  to  show  him  calm,  majestic,  omniscient,  the  effortless  master 
of  all  forces.  In  all  other  cases,  we  judge  the  ethical  worth  of 
a  man  by  the  character  he  achieves  by  will  and  effort.  If  he 
has  any  unusual  outfit  of  nature,  we  deduct  it  in  our  estimate. 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


193 


How  can  we  claim  high  ethical  value  for  the  personality  and 
character  of  Jesus  if  no  effort  of  will  was  necessary  to  achieve 
it?” 

“We  must  democratize  the  conception  of  God,”  pipes  our 
“social”  theologian  in  the  chorus  of  pygmy  professors.  " The 
worst  thing  that  could  happen  to  God  would  be  to  remain  an 
autocrat  while  the  world  is  moving  toward  democracy .  He 
would  be  dethroned  with  the  rest.” 

Actually,  the  man  patronizes  God.  “Some  would  be  willing 
to  think  of  God  as  less  than  omnipotent  and  omniscient  if  only 
he  were  working  hard  with  us  for  that  Kingdom  which  is  the 
only  true  democracy.” 

There  is  a  Voltairean  sneer  in  such  a  sentence  as  “faith  may 
shrivel  up  into  something  so  small  as  putting  a  finger  on  a 
Scripture  text  and  ‘claiming  the  promise,’  ”  and  contemptuous 
allusions  to  the  mentality  of  Biblical  believers  are  found  here 
as  in  all  literature  of  this  type.  Thus  of  those  who  look  for 
the  return  of  Christ,  he  says,  “Eschatology  is  usually  loved  in 
inverse  proportion  to  the  square  of  the  mental  diameter  of 
those  who  do  the  loving.”52 

Well,  Sir  Isaac  Newton  was  profoundly  interested  in  escha¬ 
tology  and  the  most  presumptuous  theologian  has  never  found 
fault  with  his  mentality. 

At  the  Quarter  Centennial  Celebration  of  the  University  of 
Chicago,  Dean  Shailer  Mathews  stated  of  the  graduates  of 
his  seminary  that  they  were  to  be  found  “not  only  in  significant 
pulpits  of  the  country,  but  also  in  scores  of  faculties  of  theo¬ 
logical  seminaries  and  colleges  as  well  as  in  the  presidencies 
of  colleges  and  as  executive  officers  of  various  denominations.”*53 

*It  is  no  secret  that  the  University  of  Chicago  theology  is  permeating 
the  Baptist  colleges  and  secondary  schools  and  indeed  it  is  obvious  that 
this  is  the  purpose  of  its  sponsors.  In  Modernism  in  Action  E.  P.  Stead 
gives  a  picture  of  Pillsbury  Academy,  a  Minnesota  school  into  which 
the  denomination  has  put  large  sums  and  which  is  asking  for  four 
hundred  thousand  more.  The  unbelief  which  has  worked  into  the 
school-faculty  and  the  pulpit  of  the  town-church  would  gratify  the 
most  ardent  Unitarian  if  we  may  trust  this  pamphlet.  Equally  signifi¬ 
cant  are  the  reports  of  moral  degeneracy.  “"Teachers  and  students 


194  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

Rochester  Seminary  is  a  case  in  point.  Of  its  faculty,  Cross, 
Robins,  Parsons,  Moehlmann,  Erb,  Vichert,  have  had  Chicago 
training.  They  show  it.  One  has  but  to  turn  to  the  R.  T .  S. 
Bulletin  where  they  are  discussing  entre  nous.  Take  No.  3, 
73rd  year,  for  example.  Prof.  Moehlmann  takes  large  space 
to  show  a  la  Reuss  the  numerous  contradictions  of  Scripture. 
Prof.  Cross  ridicules  the  Christian  notion  that  there  is  any 
innate  hostility  between  Christ  and  the  world.  “The  religion 
that  taught  that  the  natural  world  was  under  a  curse,  that  the 
good  man  was  but  a  stranger  here,  and  the  only  hope  of  hu¬ 
manity  lay  in  the  discovery  or  disclosure  of  another  world  to 
which  men  might  flee  and  escape  the  tasks  and  trials  of  this 
world  [is]  directly  controverted  by  the  Protestant  principle. 
.  .  .  The  world  and  the  human  mind  [are]  friends.  .  .  .  The 
facts  and  forces  of  the  universe  are  working  in  sympathy  with 
the  Christian  spirit.”  Prof.  Robins,  after  a  discussion  of  magic, 
tabu,  etc.,  remarks,  “Our  own  religion  roots  in  exactly  this 
soil,  and  the  sacred  book  which  preserves  to  us  as  Christians 
the  records  and  traditions  of  our  faith  was  initiated  under 
exactly  such  circumstances.”  [ R .  T.  S.  Bulletin ,  75th  year, 
No.  1.]  The  Israelites  owed  much  to  the  Canaanites.  (“That 
the  experience  of  contact  with  superior  culture,  and  such  that 
of  the  Canaanite  and  Philistines  was,  should  quicken  the  life 
of  the  conquerors  of  Palestine  is  not  surprising.”)  This  member 
of  the  American  Baptist  Foreign  Mission  Board  appears  to 
have  the  Chicago  theory  of  “democratizing  God.”  “Time  was 
when  the  conception  of  God  as  the  universal  monarch  met  all 
requirements,  for  monarchy  supplied  the  pattern  of  the  state 
to  which  the  religious  thinker  subscribed.  But  now  that  he 

swearing  and  smoking  together  in  a  downtown  bowling  alley;  lying 
boosting  of  the  school  in  prospectuses;  Pillsbury  Pool  and  Poker  Club; 
petty  thieving;  the  single  Pillsbury  ministerial  student  a  cigarette  fiend 
and  snoose-chewer.  A  divinity  student  of  the  University  of  Chicago 
fills  the  village  pulpit.  He  thinks  Christ  divine  as  we  all  are  divine 
[snoose-chewers  included]  and  that  the  Virgin  Birth  is  a  matter  of 
opinion;  agrees  to  avoid  preaching  negations  but  must  stand  by  his 
[Chicago]  divinity  school  as  he  has  received  a  very  wonderful  training 
there.” 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


195 


has  reached  quite  another  conception  of  the  state  what  shall 
we  do  with  the  controlling  notion  of  God  as  monarch  ?” 

“The  theological  seminaries  of  almost  all  our  denominations 
are  becoming  so  infected  with  this  grievous  error  that  they  are 
not  so  much  organs  of  Christ  as  organs  of  Antichrist,”  said 
Dr.  A.  H.  Strong  shortly  before  his  death.54  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  he  would  have  excepted  his  own 
Rochester. 

Or  Colgate,  if  Prof.  Frank  A.  Starratt  of  the  chair  of  Chris¬ 
tian  theology  is  representative  of  that  faculty.  In  the  congenial 
atmosphere  of  the  Religious  Education  Association  convention 
(1918),  Prof.  Starratt,  after  speaking  of  the  democratization 
of  knowledge  announced: 

“Through  this  process,  there  has  come  about  the  renunciation 
of  all  dependence  upon  some  supra-human  world  for  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  life's  problems ,  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  man  must 
rely  upon  his  own  powers  to  meet  life’s  perplexities  and  also 
the  insight  that  the  individual  does  not  stand  alone  in  isolation, 
but  in  a  social  complex  through  which  there  is  constant  inter¬ 
communication  and  in  which  he  finds  correction  as  well  as 
support  and  confirmation.  This  is  the  very  essence  of  democracy 
which  looks  not  beyond  the  sphere  of  human  experience  for 
light  and  authority ,  but  within.  Autocracy,  on  the  other  hand, 
rests  ultimately  upon  the  belief  that  light  and  authority  have 
their  origin  outside  human  experience  and  reach  man  only 
through  specially  prepared  channels. 

“This  would  not  foreclose  the  question  as  to  whether  man 
stands  related  to  an  extra-human  spiritual  world  or  not.  That 
question  might  be  answered  either  way,  so  far  as  the  principle 
of  democracy  is  concerned.  It  would  preclude,  however,  every 
notion  of  special  privilege  or  of  an  esoteric  body  of  knowledge 
coming  to  man  through  special  channels.  If  there  be  such  a 
world  open  to  man,  it  is  open  to  man  as  man.  If  there  be 
contacts  with  that  world,  then  it  will  be  discovered  where 
all  other  contacts  are  discovered,  in  the  conscious  experi¬ 
ence.”55 


196 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Dr.  Padelford  likes  to  tell  the  story  of  “the  little  group  of 
men  at  Hamilton  who  laid  their  thirteen  dollars  upon  the 
table  at  Deacon  Olmstead’s  and  thus  began  the  work  of  that 
Baptist  seminary.”  But  what  is  Dr.  Padelford  doing  in  his 
influential  position  as  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Education  of 
the  Northern  Baptist  Convention  to  prevent  such  essential 
atheism  as  the  above  being  taught  in  the  seminary  which  has 
grown  out  of  that  meeting  at  Hamilton?56 

The  Unitarians  are  following  the  apostasy  of  the  Protestant 
seminaries  with  delighted  expectancy,  and  when  their  organ 
says,  “The  progressive,  liberal  elements  absolutely  control 
Crozer,”57  we  can  well  believe  Crozer  to  be  far  gone.  Here, 
too,  the  University  of  Chicago  influence  is  obvious.  Profs. 
Matthews,  Lewis,  Norton,  Cole,  and  Webster,  bear  the  stamp 
of  study  there,  Norton  and  Matthews  having  also  taught  in 
Chicago.  In  reviewing  a  book  of  Prof.  Vedder,  the  Christian 
Register  declared :  “The  church  truly  is  awakening  when  it 
is  possible  for  a  teacher  of  church  history  to  declare  explicitly 
against  the  old  doctrine  of  the  atonement.”59. 

That  was  written  eleven  years  ago  and  Prof.  Vedder  still 
holds  a  chair  in  Crozer. 

Passages  in  this  book,  The  Fundamentals  of  Christianity t 
might  well  have  dropped  from  any  “infidel”  press.  What  would 
Dr.  H.  G.  Weston  and  Mr.  Samuel  Crozer,  who  worked  so 
intimately  to  build  up  this  institution,  have  said  to  the  fol¬ 
lowing? 

“Paul's  idea  of  law,  of  penalty,  of  expiation,  offends  the 
modern  sense  of  justice  and  contradicts  our  ethical  values  at 
every  point  of  contact.  Without  caricature  it  may  be  compared 
to  ideas  that  prevail  in  certain  police  circles  today.  A  sensational 
crime  is  committed ;  the  public  is  greatly  aroused  and  demands 
detection  and  punishment  of  the  criminal.  This  the  police  are 
unable  to  accomplish,  but  obviously  something  must  be  done  to 
silence  public  clamor;  so  they  ‘frame  up’  a  case  against  someone 
who  can  plausibly  be  made  the  scapegoat.  He  is  convicted  by 
perjury,  the  public  cry  is  silenced,  the  majesty  of  the  law  has 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


197 


been  vindicated,  justice  is  satisfied.  But  we  are  no  longer  con¬ 
tent  with  that  brand  of  ‘justice.’  We  insist  that  the  guilt  of 
the  guilty  cannot  be  expiated,  justice  cannot  be  satisfied  by  the 
punishment  of  the  innocent.  Yet  our  theology  continues  to 
teach  that  the  Almighty  could  find  no  better  expedient  to  save 
men  than  ‘to  frame  up’  a  case  against  His  own  Son  and  put 
to  death  the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  And  that  which  fills  us 
with  horror  when  done  by  man  to  man,  we  praise  and  glorify 
when  done  by  God  to  God.59  .  .  .  Paul  appeals  to  a  state  of 
mind  that  has  forever  passed  away — at  least  among  civilized 
peoples — though  his  theology  may  be  still  helpful  to  African 
savages.” 

Prof.  Norton’s  Rise  of  Christianity  is  described  by  the  Uni¬ 
tarian  reviewer  as  “a  remarkable  illustration  of  how  far  modern 
scholarship  has  traveled  from  the  old  supernatural  toward  the 
new  natural  explanation  of  the  rise  of  Christianity.”'60  Dr. 
Frank  Lewis  writes  [ Homiletical  Review ,  Feb.  1922],  “We 
understand  as  our  Baptist  forefathers  had  not  yet  occasion  to 
see  that  the  Bible  is  not  noiu  and  has  not  been  in  the  past ,  an 
authority  in  any  real  sense  of  the  term.”  Naturally,  then,  the 
old  biblical  sanctions  which  found  expression  in  Puritan  Chris¬ 
tianity  are  no  longer  valid.  The  Crozer  professor  of  religious 
education,  Prof.  Stewart  Cole,  declares  that  “Puritanism  has 
lost  its  reputation  as  a  humanizing  agent  for  building  men  of 
moral  force  capable  of  moral  leadership.  So  far  as  the  rank 
and  file  of  young  people  are  concerned,  not  only  have  the  old 
values  of  conduct  crumbled,  but  the  authoritative  social  attitude 
of  Puritanism  has  collapsed.” 

This  from  a  Chicago  University-trained  professor  of  religious 
education  when  the  Loeb-Leopold  murder  is  still  fresh  in  our 
memories ! 

Instead  of  Christ’s  categorical  imperative,  “Ye  must  be  born 
again,”  we  get  the  following  vague  jargon : 

“Youth  have  not  lost  religion;  they  have  turned  from  the 
program  of  Puritanism  to  a  quest  for  wholesome  life  relations 
within  their  thrilling  and  social  cosmic  world.  They  are  as 


198 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


religious  as  ever,  only  their  religion  is  of  another  color  and 
quality.  The  dynamic  of  such  a  religious  interpretation  based 
on  free  moral  inquiry  into  the  social  and  cosmic  facts  of  life 
and  spontaneous  and  wholesome  response  to  the  stimuli  arising 
out  of  the  world  in  which  they  are  searching,  affords  a  religious 
control  which  they  will  be  glad  to  employ  for  more  beneficial 
investment  of  life.”61 

Another  professor  of  religious  education,  Dr.  James  B.  Web¬ 
ster,  erstwhile  of  Shanghai  Baptist  College,  now  of  Crozer, 
writes  in  the  “social”  patois  of  Shailer  Mathews  [ Christian 
Education  and  the  National  Consciousness  in  China].  The 
principles  of  the  Kingdom  are  those  of  a  “social  democracy 
in  which  the  individual  realizes  his  best  self  in  advancing  the 
welfare  of  humanity  as  a  whole.”  The  agency  is  “education”; 
“the  outcome  is  no  violation  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  to  call  ‘the 
democracy  of  God.’  ” 

Old  methods  of  missions  are  in  Dr.  Webster’s  judgment 
“strongly  colored  by  the  egoism  and  small  group  interests  of 
the  times  in  which  they  rose.”  Think  of  charging  Judson  and 
the  pioneers  of  the  American  Board  with  egoism!  Those  who 
regard  Christianity  as  “antagonistic  to  the  ethnic  faiths  of  the 
world”  are  unfavorably  contrasted  with  those  who  consider 
it  “the  complement  of  other  religions.”  We  are  told  that  it 
is  a  (< vicious  use  of  [mission]  schools  simply  to  teach  Christian 
doctrine.”  The  task  of  Christian  education  Dr.  Webster  defines 
as  not  the  bringing  of  new  moral  and  religious  truths  to  China, 
but  “the  vitalizing  of  moral  and  religious  truths  which  the 
Chinese  possess.  ...  It  does  not  seem  possible  or  necessary  to 
bring  any  new  moral  truth  to  the  Chinese.”' 62 

Crozer  carries  on  an  extension  course  which  has  furnished 
training  to  a  thousand  students  including  a  number  of  mis¬ 
sionaries  in  India,  Africa,  and  Latin  America.  It  has  two 
scholarships  for  Asiatic  Christian  students  bringing  in  $300 
each  yearly. 

Chicago  Theological  Seminary  is  Congregationalist.  It  has 
recently  affiliated  with  the  University  of  Chicago.  “The  renewed 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


199 


life  of  Andover  at  Cambridge,”  wrote  President  Davis  in  the 
Chicago  Theological  Register ,  “is  the  strongest  possible  argu¬ 
ment  for  university  affiliation.”  “Chicago  Seminary,”  he  con¬ 
tinued,  “will  maintain  its  strongly  evangelical  and  evangelistic 
temper  at  the  University.”  The  same  fanfare  was  sounded, 
as  we  have  seen,  when  Andover  was  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  turned  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  Harvard  Unita- 
rianism. 

This  seminary  w’as  built  up  in  the  pioneer  days  by  the  Con¬ 
gregational  churches  of  the  Middle  West.  Its  teaching  chairs, 
the  Illinois,  the  Iowa,  and  the  Michigan,  professorships,  bear 
witness  in  their  names  to  the  devotion  and  sacrifices  of  the 
frontier  churches  of  these  several  states.  Dr.  Pearson  gave 
$400,000  to  this  seminary,  and  Dr.  Pearson  was  an  evangelical 
who  delighted  in  Bible  teaching  in  railroad  missions.  In  the 
Charter  and  Constitution  of  the  school  (p.  9)  there  is  a  declara¬ 
tion  of  faith  in  eleven  articles.  The  third  reads: 

“I  believe  that  God  made  all  things  by  the  word  of  His 
power  and  that  in  His  righteous  providence  He  overrules  them 
in  subservience  to  His  own  glory  and  the  highest  good  of  the 
universe.” 

How  this  seminary  keeps  faith  with  the  ideals  of  its  founders 
and  particularly  with  this  article  of  its  constitution  appears 
from  Prof.  C.  A.  Beckwith’s  The  Idea  of  God.  Prof.  Beckwith 
is  Illinois  Professor  of  Christian  Theology.  He  thinks  that  “the 
traditional  idea  of  God  was  the  product  of  conditions  of  the 
time.”  Naturally,  therefore,  it  makes  little  appeal  “to  the 
modern  man.”  ‘(lf  the  alternative  is  either  that  idea  of  God 
unmodified  or  none,  then  the  conclusion  must  be, — no  God.” 

“We  cannot  without  further  ado  find  in  the  Scriptures  cur 
final  idea  of  God.”  Even  Jesus  does  not  furnish  this.  “No  idea 
of  God  which  arises  under  historical  conditions  is  permanently 
valid  for  the  rational  and  religious  consciousness.” 

Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed 
by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not 
made  of  things  which  do  appear.  Not  so,  thinks  Prof.  Beckwith. 


200 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Greek  paganism  knew  better.  “In  the  nature  of  the  world 
as  we  know  it,  there  is  not  a  single  thing  which  argues 
for  an  absolute  beginning  of  its  existence.  The  ultimate  con¬ 
stituents  of  being  are  eternal.” 

There  was  no  creation  nor  is  there  an  Absolute  God  who 
created  the  world  and  who  exists  apart  from  it.  “The  ultimate 
question  is  perhaps  not  so  much  whether  a  Being  so  defined 
is  personal,  as  whether  such  a  Being  exists.” 

“There  is  no  such  reality  as  an  undifferentiated  universal. 
The  One  exists  only  in  and  through  the  Many”  [i.  e.,  Man¬ 
kind].  “So  far  as  the  ends  are  concerned  which  make  for 
personality,  God  is  as  impotent  without  man  as  man  is  impotent 
without  God.” 

“Whether  self-hood,  self-consciousness,  self-control,  and  the 
power  to  know,  are  true  of  the  Reality  which  is  the  indwelling 
and  directive  power  in  the  universe,  we  may  not  be  in  position 
to  say.  It  is  not  true  in  any  sense  which  these  words  bear  in 
our  human  experience  and  speech 

The  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  dwelling  in  the  light 
which  no  man  can  approach  unto  is  reduced,  in  the  fashion 
of  von  Hartmann,  to  unconscious  will.  “It  would  be  idle  to 
look  primarily  elsewhere  for  the  personality  of  God  than  in 
the  ends  which  are  being  realized  in  our  world.” 

Prof.  Beckwith  assigns  to  this  wraith  of  God  neither  “a 
divine  memory  nor  a  divine  anticipation,  distinct  and  separate 
from  the  world-process.”  “No  defensible  doctrine  of  revelation 
could  guarantee  the  validity  of  belief  of  an  absolute  foreknowl¬ 
edge  of  all  events  which  lie  in  the  bosom  of  the  future.” 

“Apart  from  the  universe  God  is  unconceivable.”  We  have 
arrived  at  a  pantheism  which  is  hardly  more  than  a  polite  name 
for  atheism.  “There  is  no  beyond,  no  heaven  removed  from 
the  world  as  a  dwelling-place  for  the  divine.”  Solomon’s 
prayer  of  dedication,  “Hear  thou  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place,” 
is  as  antiquated  as  the  worship  of  Olympian  Zeus. 

“The  idea  of  God  detached  from  social  experiences  in  which 
it  gets  its  only  meaning  and  reduced  to  metaphysical  terms,  is 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


201 


a  pale  and  worthless  abstraction.”  Prof.  Ames  likens  it  to  the 
image  which  the  child  seeks  behind  the  mirror.  That  glorious 
thing  democracy  has  hypnotized  Prof.  Beckwith  as  so  many  other 
theologians.  “It  will  be  impossible  to  preserve  the  abso¬ 
lute  and  irresponsible  sovereignty  of  God  when  earthly 
kings  have  been  deposed.  .  .  .  Even  Fatherhood,  if  it  rep¬ 
resents  simply  a  paternal  instead  of  an  all-pervading  min¬ 
istry  of  love,  will  cease  to  represent  God  to  the  democratic 
society.” 

When  one  renounces  the  God  of  revelation,  one  naturally 
lays  little  value  on  supposed  revelation.  “To  hold  that  super¬ 
natural  revelation  communicates  truth  which  is  otherwise  in¬ 
accessible  to  the  reason  is  to  allege  an  impossible  definition 
of  reason  and  revelation.”  Prof.  Beckwith  draws  the  logical 
consequence  and  quotes  H.  G.  Wells,  Samuel  Butler,  Whit¬ 
man's  Leaves  of  Grass ,  and  like  modern  literature,  much  more 
often  than  the  Scriptures.63 

Prof.  Youtz  of  Oberlin  [The  Enlarging  Conception  of  God ] 
is  equally  scornful  of  the  biblical  conception  of  God.  Of  the 
atoning  work  of  Christ,  he  speaks  in  such  terms  as  “cheap 
absolutions.”  There  is  no  forgiveness  of  sin.  “The  wages  of 
sin  is  death  and  the  wages  will  be  promptly  paid  on  pay-day. 
.  .  .  Men  are  not  easily  persuaded  by  religious  doctrines  which 
speak  of  a  deity  who  transcends  the  moral  law  or  who  abro¬ 
gates  it  to  save  men  from  the  consequence  of  their  transgressions 
or  to  lift  them  to  heavenly  places.” 

So  do  they  count  the  blood  of  the  covenant  a  thing  of 
naught  in  the  Oberlin  of  President  Finney  and  Asa  Mahan 
and  J.  H.  Fairchild. 

“Righteousness  cannot  be  ‘imputed.’  It  must  be  achieved.” 
“Jesus  was  not  like  some  prince  from  a  royal  household  sent 
to  an  outlying  province  with  a  tacit  understanding  that  the 
laws  were  to  be  suspended  for  his  royalty  and  that  deference 
must  be  shown  him.  .  .  .  He  had  no  mysterious  stock  of  grace 
to  draw  on  in  emergencies  to  sustain  him  above  common  men. 
.  .  .  And  the  forces  at  his  command,  the  legions  of  angels — I 


202 


The  Leaven  of  the  S adduce es 


do  not  know  what  that  means,  but  I  believe  that  the  same 
cosmic  forces  are  at  my  disposal  when  I  require  them.” 

Naturally,  “we  are  not  coerced  by  any  presupposition  of  the 
uniqueness  of  the  Bible.”  “In  all  history,  the  tendency  to  deify 
holy  books  is  observable.  The  Vedas,  the  Koran,  and  the 
Christian  Bible,*  are  cases  in  point.”  The  Bible  is  not  regarded 
as  a  divinely  given  textbook  of  religion,  a  supernaturally  ac¬ 
credited  Word  of  God,  a  court  of  last  appeal  in  matters  of 
spiritual  controversy.  We  can  rest  in  no  mythological  or  super- 
naturalistic  account  of  Jesus’  relationship  to  life.64 

The  predictive  foreshadowings  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
coming  Messiah  mean  nothing  to  Prof.  Kemper  Fullerton 
of  the  chair  of  the  Old  Testament  at  Oberlin.  He  does  not, 
as  the  early  church,  find  Christ  in  the  Psalms.  This  is  “Chris- 
tologizing  the  Psalms.”  The  great  evangelical  prophecy  of  the 
ninth  of  Daniel  on  which  Israel  was  waiting  at  the  Advent  is 
mere  fancy.  “It  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon,”  he  tells 
us  in  Prophecy  and  Authority ,  “that  predictive  prophecy  has 
always  been  immediately  connected  with  a  non-moral  theory 
of  inspiration.” 

Of  course,  if  there  was  no  prediction  of  the  first  coming, 
there  is  none  of  a  second.  “Millennial  expectations  are  vetoed.” 
Small  loss,  for  they  tend  to  “hysteria  and  morbidness,  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  mental  disease.”  All  the  repeated  promises  of  a  second 
coming  which  Christ  made  and  his  warnings  to  wait  on  it 
are  dissolved  into  anticipations  of  “social  improvement.”  Yet, 
he  says,  we  can  still  repeat,  “though  in  a  sense  somewhat  dif¬ 
ferent,” 

Religion  bears  our  spirits  up 
While  we  expect  that  blessed  hope, 

The  bright  appearing  of  our  Lord, 

And  Faith  stands  leaning  on  his  Word.65 

To  another  Oberlin  savant.  Prof.  Bosworth,  we  owe  this 
flash  of  inspiration.  “Jesus  had  felt  himself  charged  as  Messiah 
with  the  responsibility  of  making  a  success  of  the  world.” 
[ Christ  in  Everyday  Life,  211.] 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


203 


Prof.  W.  J.  Hutchins  of  Oberlin  is  now  president  of  Berea 
College  and  is  introducing  the  modernist  interpretations  to 
Appalachian  mountaineers.  Their  chief  textbook  in  the  religious 
education  course  is  Hutchins’  The  Religious  Experience  of 
Israel . 

He  commends  in  this  book  Kent’s  Elistorical  Bible  to  his 
young  people  and  his  own  point  of  view  is  distinctly  Kentian. 
The  old  pronouncements  are  all  here.  “The  Hebrews  did  not 
generally  and  clearly  attain  to  the  conviction  of  the  one  sole 
universal  righteous  God  until  the  Babylonian  exile.”  The  sug¬ 
gestion  is  offered  that  the  name  Jehovah,  “the  origin  of  which 
is  unknown,”  comes  from  the  word  meaning  to  blow.  Thus 
Jehovah  would  be  originally  “the  god  of  the  tempest.” 

Abraham’s  historicity  is  doubtful.  The  stories  which  gather 
about  him,  at  least  some  of  them,  “are  true  to  truth  rather 
than  to  history.”  The  Genesis  narrator  “thinks  of  Jehovah  as 
bidding  him  start  upon  a  great  adventure  into  the  unknown.” 
The  narrative  doubtless  idealizes  Abram  as  one  who  fights  with 
kings.  “Three  hundred  and  eighteen  men  could  scarcely  have 
been  a  deciding  factor  in  defeating  the  kings  of  the  most  pow¬ 
erful  peoples  of  Asia.”  It  is  as  unbelievable  as  the  story  of 
Marathon’s  six  hundred. 

Joseph  was  “rather  priggish.”  The  roots  of  the  Passover  go 
further  back  than  one  realizes  from  Exodus.  “Four  or  five 
thousand  years  ago  a  rude  nomad  killed  the  first  lamb  of  his 
flock  and  smeered  its  blood  on  the  tent  poles  that  no  angry 
god  might  smite  him  with  the  plague.  He  then  ate  the  flesh 
with  the  family  as  a  sacrificial  meal,  thanking  his  god,  who 
was  supposed  to  be  a  sharer  of  his  feast.”  The  date  of  Daniel 
Prof.  Hutchins  can  fix  to  a  year.  In  touching  phrase  he  tells 
of  “the  little  groups  of  nameless  fighters  gathering  around 
Judas  Maccabaeus  in  the  chill  night  air  of  the  wilderness  to 
hear  the  story  of  Daniel”  [just  off  the  press],  “and  to  warm 
their  hearts  at  the  flames  of  his  defiant,  deathless  fidelity 

President  Hutchins  finds  another  side  to  Josiah’s  reformation 
with  its  overthrow  of  Baal  worship.  “As  it  ruined  hundreds 


204 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  village  shrines  it  cut  away  the  trellises  upon  which  the 
religious  life  of  thousands  of  people  had  been  climbing  for  years. 
It  meant  the  financial  ruin,  the  degradation  of  hundreds  of 
village  priests  who  had  cared  with  patient  zeal  for  their  shrines 
and  ministered  with  real  though  superstitious  comradeship  to 
the  religious  life  of  the  common  people.”66 

This  higher  critical  “sob-stulf”  over  the  fall  of  Canaanrte 
idolatry  and  nastiness  is  served  up  to  the  young  people  of  Berea. 
It  will  help  to  explain  a  broadside  the  writer  recently  ran 
across  in  the  Boston  Public  Library.  “John  G.  Fee,”  this 
declared,  “with  his  eighty-odd  years  is  doing  more  real  mis¬ 
sionary  work  among  the  colored  people  and  mountain  whites 
than  all  the  rest  of  the  faculty  at  Berea.  And  yet  the  president 
had  him  retired  from  his  Bible  work  in  the  college  to  make 
way  for  favorites.  Kentucky  needs  no  Chicago  University." 
Mr.  Fee  was  the  heroic  founder  of  Berea. 

The  Haskell  Lectureship  at  Oberlin  was  lately  filled  by 
Prof.  Lake  of  the  Harvard  Theological  School.  When  it  is 
necessary  to  prove  that  the  Harvard  school  is  “non-sectarian,” 
Prof.  Lake  is  classified  as  an  Episcopalian;  when  count  is  being 
made  of  the  Unitarians  in  Who's  Who ,  he  heads  the  list. 
(C.  R.  1925:422.)  In  an  Atlantic  article,  Aug.  1924,  he  makes 
what  appears  to  be  a  confession  of  atheism.  “The  devil,”  he 
writes,  “is  the  ghost  of  primitive  men  and  God  is  the  unborn 
life  of  the  world  that  is  yet  to  be."  In  the  same  article  he  says 
of  prayer,  “I  do  not  believe  that  the  religion  of  tomorrow  will 
have  any  more  place  for  petition  than  it  will  have  for  any  other 
form  of  magic.”  In  1922  he  delivered  the  Ingersoll  Lecture 
on  “Immortality  and  the  Modern  Mind.”  This  is  his  con - 
fessio  fidei:  “I  enjoy  my  own  existence.  I  enjoy  all  of  it:  its 
bad,  I  fear,  as  well  as  its  good.  But  I  am  not  so  much  intoxi¬ 
cated  by  the  love  of  my  own  individuality  as  to  think  it  can 
be  or  ought  to  be  immortal.”  Judicious  people  “think  of  eternal 
death  as  more  comforting  than  the  threat  of  eternal  life.”68 

So  then  Prof.  Lake  who,  as  far  as  one  can  judge,  believes 
neither  in  God  nor  devil,  prayer  nor  the  future  life  [in  the 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


205 


usual  sense  of  the  terms],  is  a  teacher  of  Andover  students,  is 
invited  by  the  theological  faculty  of  Oberlin  to  lecture  there 
and  conducts  “prayers”  at  Mt.  Holyoke  College  and  Union 
Seminary. 

From  the  Methodist  seminaries  comes  the  same  story.  Bishop 
Mead  has  been  obliged  to  call  for  the  resignation  of  the  faculty 
of  the  Iliff  School  of  Theology.  Professors  in  this  school  are 
acceptable  preachers  in  the  Unitarian  church  of  Denver.  A 
transcript  of  notes  taken  by  students  in  Iliff  classes  shows  the 
reason.69 

“There  are  no  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament  that  refer 
to  the  Christ.  Paul  and  Jesus  are  opposed  to  each  other.  If 
we  want  the  truth  we  must  get  back  to  Jesus  [that  is,  away 
from  Paul’s  interpretation  of  Jesus’  work]. 

“Judaism  gives  us  a  more  exalted  idea  of  God  than  does 
Christianity  as  interpreted  by  Paul,  for  with  Judaism  man 
could  approach  God  directly,  whereas,  Paul  insists  that  in  order 
to  approach  God  man  must  have  a  mediator. 

“The  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  can  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  Hebrews  believed  that  children  were  the  direct  gift 
of  God,  as  seen  in  the  story  of  the  birth  of  Samuel.  Such  a 
story  grew  up  round  a  man  after  he  had  become  famous. 

“The  book  of  Revelation  should  not  have  a  place  in  the 
Scriptures  for  its  conception  of  God’s  character  is  heathenish.”* 

Garrett  Biblical  Institute  is  the  most  important  of  the 
Methodist  seminaries.  It  was  founded  by  John  Dempster,  a 
typical  Methodist  itinerant  who  also  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  Boston  University  School  of  Theology.  Its  early  patron, 
Eliza  Garrett,  was  converted  under  the  ministry  of  Peter 
Borein,  of  whom  it  was  said,  “It  never  occurred  to  him  to 
think  the  sermon  ended  until  the  hearer  was  saved.”1*  Out  of 

*Mr.  J.  E.  Bentley,  M.  A.,  S.  T.  B.,  M.  R.  E.,  of  Iliff,  is  quoted  in 
Grace  and  Truth  for  March,  1925,  as  follows:  “‘Ye  must  be  born 
again/  Certainly  I  believe  this.  One  day  I  woke  up  to  find  that  this 
was  the  day  that  I  was  to  take  the  hand  of  a  fair  lady  and  make  her 
my  wife.  That  day  I  was  born  again.  Then  one  day  a  little  boy  was 
born  into  our  home.  I  was  born  again.  Surely  I  believe  we  must  be  born 
again.” 


206 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


this  school  of  the  prophets  and  missionaries  of  Methodism  are 
coming,  so  we  are  told,  such  class-room  notes  as  the  following: 

“We  have  no  proof  as  to  the  existence  of  God,  but  we  are 
inclined  to  think  there  should  be  one  if  there  isn’t  one.” 

“We  question  if  Jesus  knew  if  there  was  a  God  or  not.” 

“Conversion  is  a  matter  of  education.  Only  those  who  have 
sinned  need  it.” 

“The  wane  in  the  revival  spirit  is  a  development,  not  a 
decay  in  religion.” 

“The  best  way  to  fight  sin  is  to  ignore  its  power.” 

“The  Apostles’  Creed  is  indeed  very  inadequate  today,  for 
it  says  things  not  true  and  leaves  unsaid  many  things  funda¬ 
mental  to  a  creed  today.” 

“The  all-important  question  today  is  not,  ‘What  must  we 
do  to  be  saved  ?,’  but,  ‘What  must  we  do  to  be  of  service  ?’  ” 

“We  do  not  believe  at  all  in  the  miraculous  as  such.  It  can 
all  be  explained  on  a  more  intelligible  basis.” 71 

Of  Watts’  lines,  “See  from  His  head,  His  hands,  His  feet, 
Sorrow  and  love  flow  mingled  down,”  one  Garrett  professor 
is  alleged  to  have  remarked  to  his  class,  “That  hymn  is  not  fit 
to  be  sung  in  a  slaughter  house.”72  “Prof.  Davison  is  described 
to  me  by  a  Garrett  student,”  writes  Dr.  Rideout,  “as  a  man 
with  a  sneer  for  nearly  everything  that  pertains  to  the  old-time 
religion.”73  Prof.  H.  F.  Rail,  who  teaches  theology,  expounds 
a  theology  in  his  Teachings  of  Jesus  which  any  Unitarian  could 
commend.* 

What  the  temper  of  the  Boston  University  School  of  Theol¬ 
ogy  is,  can  be  perhaps  fairly  understood  from  the  words  of  a  re¬ 
cent  graduate  which  are  quoted  in  the  official  Boston  University 

*Review  in  C.R.  1918:1002.  “The  book  is  wholly  unorthodox.  No 
reader  could  gather  that  the  author  was  a  Methodist  or  had  the  slightest 
interest  in  any  of  the  traditional  doctrines  of  the  church.  Any  Unita¬ 
rian  scholar  might  have  written  and  have  been  proud  in  writing  the 
whole  of  it  not  excepting  the  twenty-third  chapter,  ‘What  Jesus  Thought 
of  Himself.’  ...  It  is  to  be  wished  that  all  Sunday  schools,  Unitarian 
or  Trinitarian,  might  include  classes  working  through  this  manual. 
The  latter  schools  wrould  miss  all  the  elements  which  divide  them  from 
their  liberal  brethren.” 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


207 


Bulletin ,  Jan.  1925,  pi 4.  The  Rev.  M.  A.  Morrill  is  describ¬ 
ing  his  divinity  school  experiences. 

“We  met  all  the  bugaboos,  not  only  the  Isaiah  brothers 
(there  are  four  of  them  in  the  family,  if  memory  serves  me) 
and  the  documentary  hypothesis  for  the  Hexateuch,  but  the 
Johannine  mystery  to  boot. 

“It  was  news  that  there  was  a  Christian  cultus  quite  apart 
from  Christ.  ...  It  was  a  novel  experience  to  discover  that 
God  has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness.  Christianity,  to 
be  sure,  lost  something  of  its  sacrosanctity,  but  the  loss  never 
seemed  regrettable.  I  am  not  a  disciple  of  Buddha  or  of  Laotse; 
I  am  trying  to  be  a  follower  of  Christ,  but  my  Christianity 
is  no  longer  an  isolated  phenomenon  in  the  history  of  my  world. 
.  .  .  Many  things  are  no  longer  believed — the  fundamentalist 
brethren  would  be  distressed  to  know  how  many  of  the  old 
shibboleths,  having  lost  their  vitality,  went  overboard.  .  .  . 
But  Jesus  Christ  stands  out.  From  the  seminary  I  go  into 
life  feeling  that  nothing  counts  but  Jesus.” 

The  reading  list  for  Methodist  ministers  which  this  faculty 
publishes  commends  the  works  of  Peake,  Gunkel,  Skinner, 
Barton,  Bewer,  H.  P.  Smith,  Troeltsch,  Schweitzer,  Fosdick 
[. Modern  Use  of  the  Bible  “earnestly  recommended”],  Kent, 
Youtz,  Pratt’s  Religious  Consciousness ,  Simkovitch.  It  is  pre¬ 
sumably  graduates  fed  on  such  spiritual  husks  who  fill  thirty- 
two  posts  as  presidents,  deans,  and  principals,  of  Methodist 
universities,  colleges  and  schools  and  seventy-eight  professorships 
in  theological  seminaries  and  colleges.  .  .  .  This  bulletin  an¬ 
nounces  Harvard  courses  in  philosophy,  theology,  and  psychol¬ 
ogy,  offered  without  charge  to  Boston  University  theological 
students  [among  them  those  of  Profs.  Lake  and  G.  F.  Moore]. 
Unlike  the  other  seminaries  reviewed,  this  school  is  hard  pressed 
for  funds  and  it  is  perhaps  worth  noting  that  it  is  a  Unitarian 
publicist,  Mrs.  Mead,  who  makes  appeal  in  the  public  press 
in  its  behalf;  also  that  children  in  Methodist  Sunday  schools 
are  pressed  into  the  service  of  theological  finance.  Former 
students  of  this  Boston  school  have  borrowed  from  the 


208  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

Children’s  Loan  Day  Fund  of  the  Board  of  Education  $219,218, 
of  which  only  $97,360  has  been  repaid.74 

“I  am  not  afraid,”  wrote  John  Wesley,  “that  the  people 
called  Methodist  should  ever  cease  to  exist  in  Europe  or 
America,  but  I  am  afraid  lest  they  should  exist  as  a  dead  sect 
having  the  form  of  religion  without  the  power.  If  ever  Meth¬ 
odism  is  overthrown,  it  will  be  at  the  hands  of  her  scholars 
who  neither  believe  her  doctrines  nor  practise  her  polity.  These 
are  the  unreasonable  men  from  whom  it  must  purge  itself  or 
fall  by  its  own  weight”;  and  the  Methodist  bishops  in  1840 
expressed  their  doubts  as  to  the  expediency  of  establishing 
schools  of  divinity.  “The  history  of  such  institutions  admonishes 
us  that  the  speculators  of  human  science  have  but  too  frequently 
obscured  and  adulterated  the  doctrines  of  the  revelation  of  God 
and  that  in  many  cases  where  these  have  been  commenced  on 
evangelical  ground  they  have  wandered  into  the  dark  regions 
of  ‘rational  Christianity.’  ”75 

One  might  go  on  indefinitely  quoting  this  anti-Christian 
seminary  literature.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  from  it  what  the 
spiritual  state  of  these  institutions  is.  President  Horr  of  New¬ 
ton  acknowledges  their  failure  in  Bible  training.  “Explain  it 
how  we  will,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  our  seminaries  have 
graduated  many  men  who  .  .  .  did  not  know  the  Bible.” 
[ Inst .  Bulletin,  Vol.  4,  No.  2,  p5.]  Hartford  Seminary*  was 
founded  for  “the  promotion  of  revivals  [and]  the  defense  of 
evangelical  truth  against  prevailing  error”  [Constitution  of 
Pastoral  Union],  Indeed  it  can  be  said  to  have  grown  out  of 

*One  of  the  Hartford  defenders  of  veritas  evangelica,  Dr.  L.  B. 
Paton,  Nettleton  Professor  of  Old  Testament,  gives  a  seminary  course 
on  magic,  myth,  and  taboo.  He  finds  the  roots  of  Christianity  in  the 
primitive  cults  of  the  dead.  The  religion  of  Jehovah  grew  out  of  Baal 
worship.  “The  dark  holy  of  holies  of  Solomon’s  Temple  with  its  ante¬ 
room  in  which  a  lamp  was  kept  burning  and  bread  and  incense  were 
offered  was  the  counterpart  of  the  ancient  Canaanite  tomb.  .  .  .  Sacri¬ 
fice  is  a  rite  that  has  meaning  only  in  the  cult  of  the  dead.  .  .  .  All 
such  sacrifices  and  libations  for  the  dead  were  appropriated  by  Yahveh.*’ 
— Spiritism  and  the  Cult  of  the  Dead,  11,  18,  19,  20. 

At  the  semi-centenary  of  Hartford  Seminary  in  1884  Prof.  Wm. 
Thompson  warned  against  those  who  might  think  the  time  ripe  “to 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


209 


the  ministry  of  the  Evangelist  Nettleton.  A  bulletin  of  this 
seminary  now  tells  us  that  “the  significance  of  the  polemic 
clause  .  .  .  has  decreased  with  the  passing  years.  The  clause 
respecting  ‘revivals’  also  no  longer  implies  .  .  .  advocacy  of 
some  specific  method  of  quickening  religious  life.”76  Little  do 
the  “moderns”  concern  themselves  with  the  salvation  of  souls. 
The  very  phrase  is  unreal  and  embarrassing  to  them.  Unbelief 
is  so  widespread  among  theological  students  as  a  consequence 
of  their  contact  with  dechristianized  faculties  that  evangelical 
students  headed  by  Princeton  are  withdrawing  from  the  Stu¬ 
dents  Association  of  Middle  Atlantic  Theological  Seminaries 
and  are  organizing  a  new  group,  one  certainly  which  will  have 
no  representation  from  the  Unitarian  seminary  at  Meadville  as 
the  older  association  had.*  Years  ago  (1895)  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  urged  churches  to  debar 
Union  Seminary  graduates  from  their  pulpits.77  When  the 
situation  in  the  seminaries  is  more  generally  understood,  similar 
precautions  will  doubtless  be  taken  against  other  seminaries. 

It  may  be  added  that  education  at  these  seminaries  is  very 
expensive  as  well  as  of  little  use  to  the  evangelical  churches. 
While  the  annual  per  capita  cost  of  education  in  the  public  school 
is  $39  per  child,  in  the  high  schools  $127;  in  colleges  and 
professional  schools  $466,  that  at  Andover,  Hartford,  and  Ober- 
lin  for  example  mounts  to  $2,000  !78 

The  answer  which  “the  moderns”  give  when  charged  with 
betrayal  of  the  wishes  and  purposes  of  founders  is  that  they 
represent  a  progress  which  the  advance  of  knowledge  has  ren¬ 
dered  inevitable  and  which  the  founders  themselves  would,  if 

exchange  signals  with  those  who  deny  the  authority  of  Scripture  and 
the  expiatory  nature  of  Christ’s  death”  [i.  e.,  Unitarians]  and  called 
upon  the  successors  of  Taylor  and  Nettleton  to  a  fearless  discharge  of 
their  trust  in  case  “rationalist  speculators  attempt  to  use  our  consecrated 
funds”  for  purposes  alien  to  those  for  which  the  seminary  was  founded. 

*The  statement  of  the  Princeton  students  declares  co-operation  pos¬ 
sible  only  among  organizations  with  a  common  purpose;  insists  that 
certain  seminary  organizations  have  repudiated  evangelical  Christianity 
while  still  using  traditional  phraseology  and  expresses  regret  that  an 
organization  fostered  by  conservative  leaders  and  promising  great 
things  should  fall  short  of  its  evangelical  standards. 


210 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


living,  commend  and  even  accompany.  This  contention  is  with¬ 
out  support  in  fact.  The  men  who  founded  Union  and  Andover 
and  Oberlin  and  Rochester  were  quite  familiar  with  twentieth 
century  dechristianized  thought  in  its  eighteenth  century  dress 
and  execrated  it.  They  built  Christian  institutions  to  protect 
the  church  against  it.  All  this  becomes  clear  when  one  ranges 
the  utterances  of  the  present-day  “liberal  theologian”  alongside 
those  of  the  eighteenth  century  “infidel.” 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  VII 

1.  Prentiss,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  11,  116.  2.  E.  F.  Stearns,  Henry 

Boynton  Smith,  149.  3.  E.  F.  Hatfield,  The  Early  Annals  of  Union  Theological 

Seminary,  17.  4.  Hatfield,  op.  cit.  27.  5.  Union  Seminary  and  the  Church 

of  Christ'.  Statement  of  Board  of  Directors.  6.  Address  at  Dedication  of 
New  Buildings,  59.  7.  Quarter  Centennial  Celebration  of  the  University  of 

Chicago,  130.  8.  The  God  of  the  Early  Christians,  47.  9.  Princeton  Review, 

1924,  587.  10.  Rihbany,  A  Far  Journey,  328.  11.  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic 

Age,  51,  52,  174,  453,  575,  465,  238,  400.  12.  Union  Theo.  Sem.  Bulletin,  1918. 

13.  U.  T.  S.  Bulletin,  1922.  14.  U.  T.  S.  Bulletin,  1921.  15.  Prentiss,  op  cit. 

190.  16.  Coe,  The  Religion  of  a  Mature  Mind,  251,  330,  345,  332,  385,  44,  22, 

12,  114,  90.  Psychology  of  Religion,  xiv  157,  199,  311,  321,  190,  185,  186. 
17.  The  History  and  Religious  Value  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  5,  7,  9,  11,  14, 
30,  38,  39,  55,  63,  80.  18.  Harvard  Theological  Review,  1911,  4  and  16. 

19.  Inaugural  Address  of  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith,  55.  20.  H.  S.  Coffin,  The  Sem¬ 
inary:  its  Spirit  and  its  Aims,  19.  21.  Prentiss,  op.  cit.  136.  22.  Goodspeed, 

History  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  67.  23.  Id.  76-78.  24.  University  of 

Chicago:  Biographical  Sketches,  E.  Nelson  Blake.  25.  C.R.  1912:247.  26.  An¬ 
nual  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention,  1923:139-141.  27.  C.R.  1923:736. 

28.  C.R.  1923:209.  29.  C.R.  1923:103.  30.  C.R.  1914:711.  31.  Kelly,  Theo¬ 
logical  Education  .in  America,  104.  32.  Annual  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Con¬ 
vention,  1920,  136.  33.  Annual  of  the  N.  B.  Convention,  1921:58.  34.  Id.  60. 

35.  Id.  68-70.  36.  Guide  to  the  Study  of  the  Christian  Religion,  70.  37.  Id. 

128,  155.  38.  Case,  The  Millennial  Hope,  116,  146.  39.  Guide  to  the  Study, 

268,  263,  267,  282,  258.  40.  R.E.  1910:84.  41.  Guide  to  the  Study,  516, 

568,  571.  42.  Id.  633,  590,  673.  43.  Foster,  The  Finality  of  the  Christian 

Religion,  132,  222,  434,  444,  442,  482,  483,  405,  429,  401,  514,  510,  417,  464, 

134.  44.  Ames,  Psychology  of  Religious  Experience,  317,  313,  300,  269,  272, 

215,  351,  265.  45.  Willett,  Our  Bible,  173,  156,  143.  46.  Goodspeed,  Story 

of  the  New  Testament,  144.  47.  R.E.  7:31.  48.  Hoben,  The  Church  School 
of  Citizenship,  153,  156.  49.  Rosenberger,  Through  Three  Centuries,  92,  97,  98. 
50.  Annual  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention,  1922:204.  51.  Cross,  Creative 

Christianity,  11,  34,  38,  24,  40,  57,  69,  88,  120,  123,  128.  52.  Rauschenbusch, 

A  Theology  for  the  Social  Gospel,  85,  266,  202,  151,  48,  178,  180,  101,  209. 

53.  Report  of  the  Quarter  Centennial  of  Univ.  of  Chicago,  125.  54.  A.  H. 

Strong,  Tour  of  Missions,  189.  55.  R.E.  1918:209.  56.  Rochester  Seminary 

Bulletin,  68th  year,  No.  1,  50.  57.  C.R.  1922:1111.  58.  C.R.  1914:1118. 

59.  Vedder,  Fundamentals  of  Christianity,  191-2.  60.  C.R.  61.  Crozer  Quarterly, 
July,  1924,  334.  62.  Webster,  Christian  Education  and  National  Consciousness 

in  China.  63.  Beckwith,  Idea  of  God,  3,  8,  4,  282,  330,  301,  299,  270,  266, 


The  Apostate  Seminaries 


211 


61,  33,  16.  64.  Youtz,  Enlarging  Conception  of  God ,  40,  41,  43,  173,  115,  124, 
131.  65.  Fullerton,  Prophecy  and  Authority,  189,  200,  204.  66.  Hutchins, 

Religious  Experience  of  Israel,  68,  74,  40,  41,  46,  457,  270.  67.  Save  Berea 
College  for  Christ  and  Humanity.  68.  K.  Fake,  Immortality  and  the  Modem 
Mind,  36,  68.  69.  Fetter  of  Wm.  Parker  to  IF  P.  Sloan,  Feb.  9,  1924. 

70.  Garrett  Biblical  Institution,  Semi-Centennial  Celebration,  139.  71.  Quoted 

in  The  Pentecostal  Herald,  June  2,  1921.  72.  Mss.  letter.  73.  Pentecostal 

Herald,  June  22,  1921  74.  Boston  University  Bulletin,  Jan.,  1925,  20. 

75.  Quoted  in  Rideout,  The  Present  Crisis  in  Methodism,  10-17.  76.  Hartford 

Seminary  Foundation  Bulletin,  49.  77.  Statement  of  Board  of  Directors,  Union 
Theological  Seminary.  78.  Kelly,  Theological  Education  in  America. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


MODERNIST  ANTIQUES,  OR  THE  OLD  AND 
THE  NEW  ENLIGHTENMENT 

The  new-fledged  infidel  of  modern  brood 

Climbed  the  next  fence,  clapped  both  his  wings  and 
crowed. 

— Timothy  Dwight  in  1788. 

F  old  Reimarus  (1694-1768)  were  to  come  back  again,” 
says  Schweitzer,1  “he  might  confidently  give  himself 
out  to  be  the  latest  of  the  modernists.”*  The  main 
lines  of  destructive  criticism  were  laid  out  long  before  the 
nineteenth  century  opened.  Some  of  the  most  important  fea¬ 
tures  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  appear  as  far  back  as  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century  in  Spinoza  and  Astruc.  In  1739  Parvish  de¬ 
fended  the  theory  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  the  seventh 
century  B.  C.  His  contemporary,  the  English  free-thinker 
Anthony  Collins,  elaborating  a  thesis  which  the  anti-Christian 
controversialist  Porphyry  had  propounded  in  the  third  century 
A.  D.,  made  of  the  book  of  Daniel  a  product  of  Maccabaean 

*That  the  term  “modernist”  applied  to  17th  and  18th  century  unbelief 
is  only  superficially  an  anachronism  appears  from  a  brief  account  of 
V.  Weigel  (1533-88)  by  Prof.  Gruetzmacher  ( Moderne  Irrtuemer  tm 
Spiegel  der  Geschichte) .  Weigel’s  denial  of  God’s  transcendence  came 
probably  from  the  atheism  of  the  Italian  Renaissance  although  Weigel 
as  Christian  minister  clothed  his  heresy  in  Christian  phrase.  God  comes 
to  himself,  to  personality  and  activity,  first  in  and  with  the  world. 
God  being  immanent  in  man,  human  personality  is  the  source  of  religion 
and  the  history  of  religion  is  the  history  of  the  unaided  triumph  of 
the  divine  in  man  over  evil.  It  is  clear  from  Grossgebauer’s  criticism 
of  Weigel  that  the  seventeenth  century  had  come  to  much  the  same 
discussions  and  conclusions  in  biblical  criticism  as  present  day  modern¬ 
ism.  The  age  of  biblical  writings  was  doubted,  they  were  full  of  inter¬ 
polations,  the  prophecies  were  written  after  the  events  [especially  in  the 
case  of  Daniel],  the  prophets  were  in  favor  as  compared  with  the 
Pentateuch,  the  biblical  narrative  is  largely  legendary,  etc. 

212 


Modernist  Antiques 


213 


days.  The  notion  served  up  to  young  people  in  college  text¬ 
books  as  “modern,”  that  Ruth  was  written  in  protest  against 
Nehemiah’s  marriage  policies,  has  passed  its  century  mark.  Even 
older  is  that  of  Prof.  Fowler  that  Israel  got  in  Babylon  its 
larger  religious  outlook.  “Now  came  the  era,”  wrote  Lessing, 
“when  the  conceptions  of  Him  should  be  widened,  ennobled, 
and  purified,  and  this  was  done  during  the  captivity.  .  .  .  The 
Jews  became  acquainted  with  a  nation  which  had  a  more  spirit¬ 
ual  conception  of  God  than  the  Hebrew  people  itself  had.  The 
Hebrew  nation  came  back  from  the  captivity  wiser  than  it 
went.”2  Semler  called  the  story  of  Esther  a  myth.  Tom  Paine 
insisted  that  it  was  “priestly  ignorance  which  imposed  this  book 
[Isaiah]  upon  the  world  as  the  writing  of  Isaiah.” 

John  the  Presbyter,  that  shadowy  figure  of  present-day  criti¬ 
cism,  was  first  summoned  up  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  [three 
centuries  after  Christ].  The  modern  alogi  who  seek  to  discredit 
John’s  Gospel  echo  those  of  the  second  century. 

Chubb,  the  English  deist,  describes  the  God  of  Israel  as 
“not  the  Supreme  Being  but  only  some  tutelary,  subordinate 
god  consonant  to  the  pagan  idolatry.”*  So  Prof.  Bade  of  the 
Congregational  seminary  in  Berkeley:  “There  is  good  reason 
to  believe  that  Jahveh  was  worshipped  among  the  Canaanites 
as  a  local  divinity  in  pre-Israelite  times.  In  that  case  he  must 
have  figured  as  a  local  Baal  long  before  the  Hebrew  prophets 
began  their  reform.”3 

Bolingbroke  speaks  of  Jehovah  as  “a  local  tutelary  deity 
carried  about  in  a  trunk.”4  Dr.  Fosdick,  in  the  historic  First 
Presbyterian  Church,  New  York,  used  a  variant  expression. 
The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is  “the  box  that  God  travels  in.” 

*“Here  is  the  great  triumph  of  the  critiques.  They  believe  to  see 
here  an  entire  equality  between  Chemos,  god  of  the  Ammonites  and 
Adonai,  god  of  the  Jews.  They  are  convinced  that  each  little  people 
had  its  own  god  as  each  army  its  general.  Chemos,  Dagon,  Moloch, 
were  different  names  signifying  the  same  thing,  the  Lord  of  the  place. 
Each  people  fought  under  the  standards  of  its  god  as  the  barbarous 
people  of  Europe  fought  under  the  standards  of  their  saints  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Roman  empire.  Our  unbelievers  insist  that  this  fact 
is  fully  recognized  by  Jephtha.” — Voltaire,  La  Bible  enfin  explique ,  242. 


214 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Voltaire,  as  Prof.  Hutchins,  ridicules  the  story  of  Abraham 
pursuing  the  kings  as  an  impossibility. 

The  modern  puts  Paul  in  opposition  to  Christ  and  pits  the 
prophets  against  the  sacrificial  system  of  Israel.  So  did  the 
deists.*  The  New  Testament  contains  two  different  systems 
according  to  Bolingbroke,  contrary  to  each  other — that  of  Christ 
and  that  of  Paul.  Only  the  first  is  genuine  Christianity.5  And 
Collins  in  his  Discourse  on  Freethinking ,  treating  of  the  Jewish 
sacrificial  system,  starts  this  echo  from  Bade  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  later. 


“The  prophets  writ  wTith  as 
great  liberty  against  the  estab¬ 
lished  religion  of  the  Jews  which 
the  people  looked  on  as  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  God  himself,  as  if  they 
looked  upon  it  all  to  be  impos¬ 
ture.” — Collins,  Leland  1:97. 


“The  prophets  who  had  denied 
that  God  had  instituted  sacrifices 
or  could  be  propitiated  by  means 
of  them,  were  condemning  an  eco¬ 
nomic  abuse  as  well  as  a  religious 
superstition.” — Prof.  Bade,  op.  cit. 
297. 


“The  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken,”  said  our  Lord.  Boling¬ 
broke  describes  them  as  “coming  down  to  us  broken  and  con¬ 
fused,  full  of  additions,  interpolations  and  transpositions.  They 
are  nothing  more  than  compilations  of  old  traditions  and  abridg¬ 
ments  of  old  records  made  in  later  times.”  Prof.  Cross  of 
Rochester  Seminary  thinks  as  little  of  them.  “The  ultimate 
originals  [of  the  Gospels]  are  not  documents  at  all,  but  stories 
and  teachings  circulated  by  oral  transmission  .  .  .  from  one 
generation  to  another,  supported  and  vivified  by  the  florid 
imagination  of  the  oriental  mind.”6 

Semler  (1725-90)  would  “separate  the  eternal  truth  in 
Scripture  from  the  local  and  temporary.”  This  is  Dr.  Fos- 
dick’s  “decode  their  [the  Gospels’]  abiding  meaning  from 
outgrown  phraseology.”7  It  is  the  line  which  the  deist 
Morgan  also  took.f  He  inveighs  again  and  again  against  all 

*Reimarus:  “We  are  justified  in  drawing  an  absolute  distinction 
between  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  in  their  writings  and  what  Jesus 
himself  in  his  life  time  proclaimed  and  taught.” — Schweitzer,  Quest,  16. 

tC.  F.  Bahrdt,  a  low-living  infidel  of  the  Paine  type  though  more 
learned,  insisted  that  only  such  passages  in  the  Bible  could  be  accepted 
as  “commended  themselves  to  the  thoughtful.”  “The  thoughtful”  too 
were  an  eighteenth  century  phenomenon. 


Modernist  Antiques 


215 


historical  fact  recorded  in  the  Gospels  as  having  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Christian  faith.  He  also  distinguishes  be¬ 
tween  the  religion  of  the  “Christian  Jews”  and  the  “Chris¬ 
tian  deists.”  The  first  are  “mechanical”  ,*  the  second,  “real  and 
moral.”8 

So  are  present-day  goats  divided  from  the  sheep  with  the 
terms  “static”  and  “dynamic.” 

But  Morgan  in  this  particular  was  but  an  embryonic  Schleier- 
macher,  and  “veil-makers”  are  now-a-days  as  common  as  toad¬ 
stools  after  rain. 

“It  is  not  essential  to  Christianity,”  writes  “veil-maker” 
Fitch,  “to  see  [Christ]  as  the  incarnation  of  historical  truth. 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  beside  the  point  whether  every  statement 
regarding  external  events,  whether  made  by  him  or  about  him, 
corresponds  with  fact.  .  .  .  The  infancy  narratives,  the  dogma 
of  the  Virgin  Birth,  the  resurrection  story,  may  or  may  not 
be  true.”9 

So  the  deist  Collins  insisted  that  “Christianity  was  true 
ideally  but  not  historically.” 

In  this  process  of  “decoding,”  the  historical  occurrences  of 
the  Gospel  are  resolved  into  allegory.  The  story  of  the  miracu¬ 
lous  draught  of  fishes,  Dr.  Fosdick  suggests,  “may  be  a  sermon 
on  the  failure  of  evangelism  when  carried  on  without  Christ 
and  the  success  of  it  when  Christ  directs.  .  .  .  Our  occidental 
minds  probably  miss  many  symbolical  literary  devices  in  an 
oriental  book  and  this  may  be  one  of  them.”10  “The  miracles 
of  John’s  Gospel,”  says  Prof.  N.  Schmidt,  “seem  to  be  intended 
as  allegories.  They  are  exaggerated  to  such  a  point  as  to  raise 
at  least  the  question  whether  they  were  at  all  meant  to  be  taken 
as  narratives  of  actual  occurrences.”11 

So  thought  the  deist  Woolston. 

“Let  not  these  seeming  miracles  deceive  you.  That  blind  man 
whose  sight  I  have  restored,  that  lame,  that  leper,  that  dead 
person  to  whom  I  have  given  soundness  and  limb  and  life  itself, 
are  not  really  and  actually  cured:  whatever  I  do  of  this  kind 
is  only  by  way  of  figure  and  allegory  to  denote  my  much  greater 


216 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


performances  in  curing  men’s  errors  and  ignorance  and  want 
of  intellectual  knowledge  of  God.” 

Woolston  says  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  “It  will  always  be 
objection  enough  against  this  miracle  that  it  was  never  once 
mentioned  by  the  first  historians  nor  indeed  invented  by  the  last 
until  he  was  above  an  hundred  years  old  and  everybody  dead 
that  should  have  confuted  him.”12  Prof.  Kent  repeats  this 
objection  and  explains  the  narrative  with  the  help  of  Wool- 
ston’s  theory  of  allegory. 

The  silence  of  the  synoptic  gospels,  he  tells  us,  “suggests  that 
the  story  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  was  unknown  not  only  to 
Paul  and  the  twelve  but  also  to  the  first  generation  of  gospel 
writers.  It  was  quite  possible  that  the  evangelist  never  intended 
his  account  as  literal  history,  but  rather  as  an  allegorical  illus¬ 
tration  of  Jesus’  spiritual  power.”13 

Modernist  explanations  of  miracles  might  have  been  lifted 
bodily  out  of  eighteenth  century  free-thinkers’  writings. 


“  ’Tis  highly  probable,”  says 
Woolston  of  the  woman  with  the 
issue  of  blood,  “that  her  distemper 
was  but  some  slight  indisposition, 
a  little  bleeding  at  the  nose  now 
and  then  or  some  such  small  evac¬ 
uation  as  might  have  been  a  means 
to  prolong  her  life.  Her  cure  is 
imputed  to  the  touch  of  the  hem 
of  his  garment  when  it  was  in 
reality  the  pure  effort  of  a  strong 
imagination.” — In  Sykes,  State  of 
the  Controversy ,  111. 


Prof.  G.  A.  Barton  in  like 
phrase:  “She  touched  him.  She 
felt  sure  her  infirmity  was  gone. 
It  is  probable  that  her  trouble  was 
of  a  sort  upon  which  the  mental 
and  nervous  reactions  of  the  body 
have  a  great  influence.” — Jesus  of 
Nazareth ,  212. 


I  recall  hearing  one  evening  in  Allahabad  a  Hindu  street 
preacher  denounce  Jesus  for  “the  murder  of  a  tree.”  The 
modernists  of  the  eighteenth  and  twentieth  centuries  vie  with 
each  other  in  similar  expressions  of  indignation. 


“This  one  instance  of  his  curs-  “An  act  of  petulant  injustice 
ing  the  fig-tree  in  such  a  rash,  even  to  a  tree.” — Prof.  G.  A. 
extravagant  manner,  spoils  the  Barton,  op.  cit.  320. 
credit  and  sullies  the  glory  of  all 
his  other  works.” — Woolston,  op. 
cit.  140. 


Modernist  Antiques 


217 


Modern  attempts  to  connect  historically  the  sacrificial  death 
of  Jesus  with  Mithraism  and  other  pagan  religions  have  their 
precedent  in  deist  literature.  Thus, 


“The  taurobolia  or  the  blood- 
bedaubing  of  a  man  in  a  pit  all 
over  with  the  blood  of  a  bull 
which  fell  on  him  through  holes 
made  in  the  plank  on  which  the 
beast  was  slain  was  believed  to 
wash  away  all  his  s-ins  and  he, 
happy  man,  regenerated  to  eter¬ 
nity.  .  .  .  Natural  religion  which 
puts  the  whole  stress  on  internal 
penitence  and  true  virtue  in  the 
soul  will  be  despised  as  allowing 
no  computing  or  compounding 
with  Heaven.”  —  Matthew  Tin- 
dal,  Christianity  as  Old  as  Crea¬ 
tion,  128. 

Reinhard,  an  eighteenth  century  rationalist,  interpreted  the 
Kingdom  of  God  as  a  universal  ethical  reorganization  of  man¬ 
kind.  (Schweitzer.)  Jesus  was  a  social  reformer.  Through 
the  attainment  of  “the  highest  perfection  of  which  society  is 
capable  universal  peace  was  gradually  to  be  brought  in.”  Kant’s 
millennarian  optimism  was  of  the  same  type  and  indeed  these 
were  among  the  dominating  ideas  of  the  Aufklaerung.  The 
old  liberal  apocalyptic,  slight  as  its  basis  in  Scripture  or  history, 
has  become  in  America  widely  prevalent.  “I  believe  in  the  vic¬ 
tory  of  righteousness  upon  this  earth,  in  the  coming  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  but  I  do  not  believe  in  the  physical  return 
of  Jesus.”14 

Here  again  Dr.  Fosdick  is  at  one  with  the  deists. 


“Washing  in  the  blood  of  a 
sacrificed  victim  to  the  washing 
away  of  sin  was  the  supreme  act 
of  men  who  were  grieved  and 
wearied  with  the  burden  of  their 
sins.  The  Taurobolium  and  the 
Criobolium  were  familiar  in  many 
lands.  Their  essential  idea  is  still 
a  favorite  one  in  many  Christian 
circles.  ‘There  is  a  fountain  filled 
with  blood.’  ” — S.  D.  McConnell, 
T he  Confessions  of  an  Old  Priest , 
68. 


“The  best  interpreters  own  the 
apostles  were  grossly  mistaken  [as 
to  the  Lord’s  coming].  If  most 
of  the  apostles  were  mistaken  in 
a  matter  of  this  consequence,  can 
we  be  certain  that  any  of  them 
may  not  be  mistaken  in  other  mat¬ 
ters?” — Tindal,  op.  cit.  259,262. 


“The  facts  of  history  have 
shown  that  Paul  was  in  error  in 
his  teaching  about  the  coming  of 
the  Lord.  ...  It  is  a  palpable 
infidelity  to  truth  to  affirm  that 
this  teaching  was  true.” — Burton 
and  Goodspeed,  A  Guide  to  the 
Study,  236. 


218 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Tom  Paine’s  leading  ideas,  which  were  merely  his  statement 
of  current  eighteenth  century  ideas  in  criticism  and  theology, 
are  now  prominent  in  many  Protestant  seminaries.  Thus, 


“My  intention  is  to  show  that 
those  books  are  spurious  and  that 
Moses  is  not  the  author  of  them 
and  still  further  that  they  were 
not  written  in  the  time  of  Moses 
but  by  some  very  ignorant  and 
stupid  pretenders  to  authorship 
several  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Moses.”* — The  Age  of 
Reason,  80. 


“The  first  time  the  law  called 
the  law  of  Moses  made  its  appear¬ 
ance  was  in  the  time  of  Josiah 
about  a  thousand  years  after 
Moses  was  dead.” — Letter  to  Mr. 
Er shine,  171. 

Prophecy  is  “shooting  with  a 
long  bow  of  a  thousand  years  to 
strike  within  a  thousand  miles  of 
a  mark.”— The  Age  of  Reason,  67. 


“The  presumption  is  that  the 
books  called  the  Evangelists  were 
not  written  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke  and  John,  and  that  they 
were  impositions.  The  disordered 
state  of  the  history  in  these  four 
books  implies  that  they  are  the 
production  of  some  unconnected 
individuals  many  years  after  the 
v  things  they  pretend  to  relate.  .  .  . 


“The  fact  that  certain  sections 
of  Deuteronomy  laid  claim  to  Mo¬ 
saic  authorship  and  that  much  of 
the  law  of  Deuteronomy  was 
couched  in  the  form  of  a  public 
address  of  Moses  and  purported 
to  have  been  written  down  by  him 
was  the  basis  of  the  Jewish  view 
that  he  had  written  the  whole  not 
only  of  the  laws  but  of  the  five 
books  in  which  they  are  contained. 
This  view  is  not  supported  by  the 
facts.”— H.  L.  Willett,  The  Moral 
Leaders  of  Israel,  30. 

“The  proofs  of  the  origin  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law  in  the  days 
shortly  preceding  the  great  refor¬ 
mation  of  Josiah  are  so  convinc¬ 
ing  that  biblical  scholarship  in¬ 
creasingly  holds  the  view.” — 
Willett,  op.  cit.  189. 

“The  present  essay  seeks  to  show 
that  the  fact  of  predictive  proph¬ 
ecy  has  been  maintained  only  by 
means  of  a  false  principle  of  exe¬ 
gesis.  .  .  .  The  theory  of  predic¬ 
tive  prophecy  must  be  abandoned.” 
— K.  Fullerton,  Prophecy  and 
Authority,  xvii. 

“The  tradition  which  connects 
the  Gospel  with  the  name  of 
Matthew  is  of  no  weight.  ...  It 
is  evidently  from  the  pen  of  a 
Christian  of  the  second  or  third 
generation.”  —  McGiffert,  His¬ 
tory  of  Apostolic  Christianity,  575. 

“The  weight  of  scholarly  opin¬ 
ion  is  settling  down  to  a  convic¬ 
tion  that  the  traditional  theory  (as 


* ‘Those  who  believe  that  a  Levite  of  the  time  of  the  kings  is  the 
author^  of  Deuteronomy  are  confirmed  in  their  opinion  by  this  passage. 
.  .  .  1  hey  have  suspected  that  the  whole  Pentateuch  was  written  by 
some  Levite  872  years  after  Moses  at  the  time  of  King  Josiah.  This 
book,  then  unknown,  was  found  at  the  bottom  of  a  chest  by  the  high 

priest  Hilkiah,  when  he  counted  his  money.” — Voltaire,  La  Bible  enfin 
explique,  202. 


Modernist  Antiques 


219 


They  have  been  manufactured  by 
other  persons  than  those  -whose 
names  they  bear.” — The  Age  of 
Reason,  126. 

“The  Jews  have  stolen  their  cos¬ 
mogony  and  brought  it  with  them 
from  Babylon  on  their  return.” — 
Reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff, 
254. 

“It  is  not  difficult  to  account 
for  the  credit  that  was  given  to 
the  story  of  Jesus  Christ  being  the 
son  of  God.  He  was  born  when 
the  heathen  mythology  had  pre¬ 
pared  people  for  the  belief  of  such 
a  story.  Almost  all  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  men  that  lived  under  the 
heathen  mythology  were  reputed 
to  be  the  sons  of  some  of  their 
gods.” — The  Age  of  Reason,  29. 

“Not  any  two  of  these  wrriters 
agree  in  reciting  exactly  in  the 
same  words  the  written  inscrip¬ 
tion,  short  as  it  is,  which  they 
tell  us  was  put  over  Christ  when 
he  was  crucified.  We  may  infer 
from  this  that  those  writers,  who¬ 
ever  they  wrere  and  in  whatever 
time  they  lived,  were  not  present 
at  the  scene.” — The  Age  of  Rea¬ 
son,  1 26. 

“A  man  is  preached  instead  of 
God;  an  execution  is  an  object 
for  gratitude.  The  preachers  daub 
themselves  with  the  blood  like  a 
troop  of  assassins.  They  preach  a 
humdrum  sermon  on  the  merits 
of  the  execution.” — The  Age  of 
Reason,  148. 


“When  men  are  taught  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  Jesus  by  his  death  rubs 
all  off  and  pays  their  passage  to 
heaven  gratis  they  become  as  care¬ 
less  in  morals  as  a  spendthrift 
would  be  of  money  were  he  told 
that  his  father  had  engaged  to 
pay  off  all  his  scores.” — Paine, 
Misc.  Pieces,  312. 


to  the  authorship  of  John)  must 
be  abandoned.”  —  E.  F.  Scott, 
Fourth  Gospel,  5. 

“Back  of  this  narrative  (Gene¬ 
sis)  lay  the  old  Babylonian  story 
of  creation.” — Fowler,  Origin  and 
Growth,  145. 

“The  virgin  birth  is  not  to  be 
accepted  as  an  historical  fact.  To 
believe  in  virgin  birth  as  an  ex¬ 
planation  of  great  personality  is 
one  of  the  familiar  ways  in  which 
the  ancient  world  was  accustomed 
to  account  for  unusual  superiority. 
Especially  is  this  true  of  the 
founders  of  great  religions.” — 
Fosdick,  Shall  the  Fundamentalists 
Win? 

“Just  what  the  inscription  on 
the  cross  over  the  head  of  Jesus 
really  was  we  shall  never  know 
though  all  four  evangelists  state 
what  it  was.  But  each  states  it 
differently.”  —  Strickland,  Foun¬ 
dation  of  Christian  Belief,  244. 


“Of  all  the  slanders  men  have 
perpetrated  against  the  Most  High 
this  is  positively  the  most  impu¬ 
dent,  the  most  insulting.  No,  sin 
cannot  be  escaped  by  a  bloody 
sacrifice.  Jesus  never  taught  and 
never  authorized  anybody  to  teach 
in  his  name  that  he  suffered  in 
our  stead  and  bore  the  penalty  of 
our  sins.” — Vedder,  Lay  Sermons 
(in  the  Chester  News). 

“Guilt  and  merit  are  personal. 
They  cannot  be  transferred  from 
one  person  to  another.  We  tamper 
with  moral  truths  when  we  shuf¬ 
fle  them  about.” — Rausclienbusch, 
A  Theology  for  the  Social  Gospel, 
245. 


220 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


“The  Christian  system  of  re-  “Does  the  orthodox  ever  think?” 
ligion  is  an  outrage  on  common  — Vedder,  Fundamentals  of  Chris - 

sense.  Why  is  man  afraid  to  tianity,  192. 
think?” — Misc.  Pieces,  303. 

Paine  was  a  shabby  creature  with  the  slightest  of  training. 
This  did  not  hinder  him  from  saying,  “It  does  not  appear  that 
Jesus  had  any  school  education  and  the  probability  is  that  he 
could  not  write.”15  The  modernist  Dr.  McConnell  speaks  of 
our  Lord,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom,  in 
similar  terms.  “To  the  great  treasury  of  human  knowledge  it 
cannot  be  said  that  he  added  anything.  In  science,  literature, 
government,  economics,  he  seems  to  have  been  upon  the  same 
level  as  the  average  uneducated  man  of  his  time.  He  uncovered 
no  secret  of  nature.  He  gave  no  counsel  as  to  the  right  ordering 
of  human  affairs.”*16 

The  German  von  Ammon  did  what  is  so  commonly  done  at 
present,  put  the  modernism  of  his  day  in  parallel  with  its  evan- 
gelicism.  Let  us  compare  his  modernist  column  with  one  of  our 
own  time.17 


“The  writings  called  the  sacred 
Scriptures  are  not  more  sacred 
than  the  works  of  Plato  or  Virgil.” 


“All  that  is  called  miraculous 
ought  either  to  be  considered  as 
mythical  or  to  be  explained  in  a 
perfectly  natural  manner.” 


“The  personality  of  God  cannot 
be  affirmed ;  it  is  confounded  with 
the  soul  of  the  world.” 


“The  gift  of  inspiration  over¬ 
passes  the  boundaries  of  religion. 
God  came  to  Confucius,  to  Zoro¬ 
aster,  to  men  of  religion  who  had 
no  place  in  either  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  or  the  New.” — Hodges,  How 
to  Know  the  Bible,  14. 

There  is  a  “deadly  unreality 
in  our  thought  of  miracle.  Preva¬ 
lent  religious  thought  has  taught 
the  modern  man  to  put  miracle 
and  law  in  contradiction.” — Fos- 
dick,  Modern  Use  of  the  Bible, 
154.  [See  foot-notef  on  p.  221.] 

“The  universe  as  we  see  it  is 
God’s  body;  then  God  is  the  soul 
of  the  universe.” — J.  H.  Randall 
quoted  by  Fosdick,  Modern  Use, 
266. 


*Roehr  describes  Jesus  as  “a  man,  the  product  of  his  age  and  nation. 
Those  who  deny  this  are  stupid,  servile  and  literal.”  So  Kent,  “Jesus 
in  his  conception  of  nature,  in  his  apparent  belief  in  a  personal  devil 
and  in  his  acceptance  of  the  Jewish  tradition  regarding  the  origin  and 
authorship  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  showed  himself  in  many  respects  a 
■on  of  his  age  and  race.” — Life  and  Teaching  of  Jesus,  271. 


Modernist  Antiques 


221 


“The  doctrine  of  angels  has  no 
reality.  It  is  only  a  consequence 
of  Judaeo-Chaldean  myths.” 


“Christ  came  into  the  world  in 
the  same  way  as  other  men.” 


“The  future  judgment  is  only  a 
rabbinical  vision.” 


‘The  cures  which  Jesus  worked 
might  have  been  effected  by  others 
and  those  whom  he  resuscitated 
were  only  in  a  lethargic  state.” 


“Mental  categories  which  we  no 
longer  use  in  ordinary  life  like 
angelology.  .  .  .  When  Zoroaster- 
ism  had  done  its  work,  the  flexible 
and  fluid  Hebrew  angelology  had 
been  frozen  into  Persian  form.” — 
Fosdick,  Modern  Use,  89,  123. 

“They  phrase  it  [the  advent  of 
Jesus]  in  terms  of  a  biological 
miracle  that  our  modern  minds 
cannot  use.” — Fosdick,  The  New 
Knowledge  and  The  Christian 
Faith. 

The  Greeks  “did  not  understand 
Jewish  apocalypticism,  its  catas¬ 
trophic  arrival  of  the  day  of 
judgment.  Must  we  go  back  to 
ways  of  thinking  which  developed 
between  the  Testaments?” — Fos¬ 
dick,  Modern  Use,  108,  9. 

Lazarus  fell  into  a  comatose 
state  which  was  mistaken  for 
death.  Jesus  himself  tells  us  that 
it  was  only  a  sleep.” — Prof.  G.  A. 
Barton,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  266. 


Strauss  gathered  up  in  masterly  fashion  the  whole  literature 
of  free-thought  which  preceded  his  day.  It  would  be  a  fruitful 
undertaking  to  examine  whether  there  is  a  single  objection, 
argument,  sneer,  wound  in  Christ’s  body  to  be  found  in  Amer¬ 
ican  theological  literature  which  cannot  be  traced  back  to  the 
Leben  Jesu  or  to  Strauss’  minor  writings.* 

Dr.  Fosdick,  for  example,  repeatedly  puts  in  contrast  the 
new  age  and  the  old.  “The  days  come,  however,  as  they  have 
come  now,  when  the  church  moves  out  into  a  new  generation 
with  new  ways  of  thinking  and  new  outlooks  on  the  universe. 

t“They  blaspheme  God  when  they  represent  him  as  angry  with  his 
creatures,  as  punishing  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  and  as  pacified  by 
the  sufferings  of  the  virtuous.  They  blaspheme  the  universe  because 
in  their  zeal  to  miraculize  everything  they  rest  the  proof  of  theology 
on  the  interruptions  to  order  rather  than  on  order  itself.” — Shaftesbury, 
Quoted  in  Stephen’s  History  of  English  Thought,  2:27. 


*“These  sections  (of  the  Leben  Jesu)”  says  Schweitzer  (Quest.  84), 
“marked  out  the  ground  which  is  now  occupied  by  modern  critical 
study.” 


222 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Ideas  never  dreamed  of  before ,  such  as  scientific  law  and  evolu¬ 
tion ,  become  the  common  property  of  well-instructed  minds.”18 
In  Strauss’  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New ,  we  get  a  dissertation 
on  “the  modern  cosmic  conception  and  the  old  ecclesiastical 
one,”  quite  in  Dr.  Fosdick’s  style,  and  this  is  elsewhere  illus¬ 
trated  with  a  statement  from  Kant  which  indicates  how  old 
the  evolutionary  “dream”  really  is.  “The  resemblance  of  so 
many  species  of  animals  in  regard  to  a  certain  general  scheme 
which  seems  to  underlie  not  only  the  structure  of  their  skeleton 
but  the  arrangement  of  their  other  parts  as  well”  .  .  .  seemed 
to  Kant  to  imply  descent  and  justify  the  assumption  of  a  grad¬ 
ual  development  of  organic  beings  “from  man  down  to  the 
neophyte.”  Strauss  then  quotes  Kant’s  suggestion  that  “an 
orangoutang  or  a  chimpanzee  might  be  enabled  to  develop  his 
various  organs  into  the  human  structure,  his  brain  into  an 
organ  of  thought  which  might  then  gradually  be  further  de¬ 
veloped  by  social  culture.”19 

Strauss  also  speaks  of  modern  astronomical  science  as  “dis¬ 
possessing  the  ancient  personal  God  of  his  habitation.  He  who 
has  a  clear  cosmical  conception  in  harmony  with  the  present 
standpoint  of  astronomy  can  no  longer  represent  to  himself  a 
deity  throned  in  heaven  and  surrounded  by  angelic  hosts.”20 
This  was  Shaftesbury’s  idea  also.  Prof.  Youtz,  in  his  Enlarging 
Conception  of  God,  plagiarizes  it  from  the  past.  He  speaks  of 
“the  pagan  conception  of  heaven  where  God  dwells  apart”  [as 
if  the  idea  of  an  anirna  rnundi  were  not  pagan].  “We  must 
not  preach  him  as  ‘Lord  of  all  being  throned  afar,’  but  as  the 
power  at  work  in  our  human  world.” 

Prof.  Shotwell’s  Amherst  lectures  on  “The  Religious  Revo¬ 
lution  of  Today”  are  highly  unoriginal  variations  on  a  theme 
of  Strauss.  “Although  up  to  a  certain  point,”  says  Strauss, 
“religion  and  civilization  may  go  hand  in  hand,  this  neverthe¬ 
less  happens  only  so  long  as  the  civilization  of  nations  manifests 
itself  in  the  shape  of  imagination ;  as  soon  as  it  comes  to  be  a 
culture  of  the  reasoning  faculties  and  more  especially  as  soon 
as  it  is  manifested  through  observation  of  Nature  and  her 


Modernist  Antiques 


223 


laws,  an  opposition  gradually  develops  itself  which  circum¬ 
scribes  religion  more  and  more.  The  religious  domain  in  the 
human  soul  resembles  the  domain  of  the  Red  Indians  in  Amer¬ 
ica,  which  however  much  we  may  deplore  or  deprecate  it,  is 
year  after  year  reduced  within  ever  narrowing  limits  by  their 
white  neighbors.”21 

“One  might  run  over  the  history  of  Christianity,”  writes 
Prof.  Shotwell,  “and  watch  its  superstitions  wear  away  in  the 
light  of  a  steadily  dawning  intelligence.”* 

“On  Ascension  day,”  says  Strauss,  “it  becomes  difficult  to 
refrain  from  satire.  To  speak  of  this  event  as  one  of  actual 
occurrence  is  simply  to  affront  educated  people  at  this  time  of 
day.”22  So  Dr.  Fosdick:  “In  such  an  easily  picturable  world 
the  farewell  of  Jesus  to  the  earth  could  be  imagined  literally 
as  a  physical  levitation  until  he  was  received  into  heaven  a 
definite  distance  above  the  ground.  .  .  .  The  marvel  is  not 
that  such  a  picture  of  the  Master’s  going  and  return  should 
arise  [but]  that  after  that  old  world  had  been  so  long  outgrown 
.  .  .  many  folk  should  still  retain  the  old  picture  of  our  Lord’s 
ascent.” 23 

Dr.  Fosdick,  as  Strauss,  derides  the  Scriptural  idea  of  a  chosen 
nation.  “Nations  have  thought  themselves  God’s  chosen  people 
above  all  his  other  children  because  they  seemed  so  to  them¬ 
selves.”  And  Strauss:  “The  one  God  was  .  .  .  not  in  like 
manner  the  Lord  God  of  nations  in  the  fullest  sense;  only 
that  of  the  little  tribe  of  his  worshippers  in  comparison  to 
whom  he  treated  the  other  nations  as  step-children.  From  this 
proceeded  something  harsh,  rigid,  irascible,  in  the  whole  char¬ 
acter  of  this  God.”  “I  knew  a  village,”  wrote  the  sixty-year 
Bible  student,  Prof.  W.  N.  Clarke,  “where”  [actually!]  “the 
favorite  topic  of  conversation  was  the  return  of  the  Jews  to 

♦Strauss  repeats  Bolingbroke  as  Shotwell  Strauss:  “The  clergy  will 
agree,”  says  Bolingbroke,  “that  Christianity  has  been  in  decay  ever  since 
the  resurrection  of  letters.  ...  As  soon  as  the  means  of  acquiring  and 
spreading  information  grew  common  it  is  no  wonder  a  system  was 
unveiled  which  could  not  have  been  woven  with  success  in  any  age 
but  those  of  gross  ignorance  and  credulous  superstition.” — Works,  1:185. 


224 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Palestine.”24  “How  could  God  give  them  that  little  spot  of 
Palestine  for  ever  and  ever  from  which  they  have  been  driven 
for  so  long  a  time?”  wrote  Voltaire  under  the  impression  of 
the  same  Zionist  absurdity.25 

One  could  go  on  indefinitely  putting  the  interpretations  and 
aphorisms  of  neo-Straussian  “evangelicals”  alongside  those  of 
Strauss  himself.  Here  are  a  few  culled  at  random: 


“It  is  utterly  impossible  for  us 
to  conceive  the  creator  embodied 
in  one  single  created  being.  That 
the  deity  should  reveal  itself  in 
all  finite  beings  of  the  universe 
together  we  do  readily  admit  and 
indeed  we  are  obliged  to  do  so, 
but  that  it  should  descend  with 
all  its  fullness  into  one  finite  be¬ 
ing, — this  appears  to  us  as  absurd 
as  that  the  nature  of  harmony 
might  reveal  itself  in  one  single 
tone.” — Strauss,  Soliloquies ,  38. 


“The  idea  of  angels  assisting 
to  execute  the  decrees  of  God  in 
the  world  and  of  a  devil  endeav¬ 
oring  to  frustrate  them  [are]  mere 
fictions  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  very  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christianity  and  only  ex¬ 
ternally  adopted  from  earlier  re¬ 
ligions.  When  these  and  similar 
prejudices  shall  have  gradually 
been  cleared  away  will  not  then 
the  nature  of  Christianity  itself 
shine  forth  in  greater  purity  even 
than  it  could  appear  at  the  tirne 
of  Jesus.” — Strauss,  Soliloquies , 
63. 

“No  fear,  then,  that  we  should 
lose  Christ  by  being  obliged  to 
give  up  a  considerable  part  of 
what  was  hitherto  called  Christian 
creed.  He  will  remain  to  all  of 


“‘The  Logos  involved  the  cen¬ 
tral  assertion  that  God  can  come 
into  the  world  which  he  has  made 
and  into  man  his  child.  This  was 
the  category  which  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  used,  not  only  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  but  in  a  disguised 
form  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He¬ 
brews  and  in  the  great  Christo- 
logical  passages  in  Paul.  Jesus 
was  essentially  the  forthgoing  of 
God  himself  into  his  world.  This 
philosophical  approach  to  the  un¬ 
derstanding  of  Jesus  is  less  con¬ 
genial  with  our  modern  minds. 
.  .  .  The  modern  mind  often  feels 
positive  and  indignant  aversion 
against  such  theological  construing 
of  the  Master.” — Fosdick,  The 
Modern  Use ,  243. 

“No  intelligent  mind  can  pos¬ 
sibly  enter  into  demonology  as  a 
comprehensive  category  for  hu¬ 
man  sin  and  misery.  .  .  .  Having 
frankly  recognized  the  outgrown 
nature  of  the  category  we  need 
not  be  troubled  by  it  when  we 
read  the  Bible.  What  we  should 
seek  to  understand  is  the  abiding 
experience.”  —  Fosdick,  Modern 
Use,  121. 


“Nor  does  this  critical  and  skep¬ 
tical  attitude,  discrediting  in  a 
sense  Jesus’  ideas,  require  us  to 
lower  our  estimate  of  the  person¬ 
ality  of  Jesus.  .  .  .  The  modern 


Modernist  Antiques 


225 


us  the  more  surely  the  less  anx¬ 
iously  we  cling  to  the  doctrines 
and  opinions  that  might  tempt  our 
reason  to  forsake  him.” — Strauss, 
Soliloquies ,  63. 

“It  is  possible,  and  I  myself 
have  pointed  out  the  possibility  of 
the  exclamation,  ‘My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me’ 
only  being  attributed  to  him  in 
order  that  a  psalm  considered  by 
the  earliest  Christianity  as  the 
program  of  the  messianic  agony 
might  at  its  very  commencement 
be  applicable  to  him.” — Strauss, 
The  Old  and  the  New  Faith ,  89. 


man  does  not  value  the  person 
and  message  of  Jesus  any  the 
lower  because  Jesus  shared  the 
thought  of  his  time  on  this  sub¬ 
ject.” — G.  B.  Foster,  Finality  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  41. 

“At  certain  points  in  the  de¬ 
scription  of  Jesus’  crucifixion  it 
■would  seem  that  not  being  eye¬ 
witnesses  and  lacking  exact  his¬ 
torical  data  the  evangelists  turned 
to  the  Old  Testament  prophecies 
for  help  in  completing  the  pic¬ 
ture.” — Kent,  Life  and  Teachings 
of  Jesus,  290. 


“We  have  freed  ourselves  from  that  other  constituent  of 
religion,  ignoble  and  untrue  in  comparison  with  the  sentiment 
of  dependence, — the  desire  and  expectation  of  obtaining  some¬ 
thing  from  God  by  our  worship,”26  says  Strauss,  which  is  Prof. 
Lake’s  belief  “that  the  religion  of  tomorrow  will  have  no  more 
place  for  petition  than  for  any  other  form  of  magic”;27  and 
in  general  the  so-called  modern  and  Unitarian  conception  of 
Christ’s  work  is  compactly  stated  by  Strauss : 

“Jesus  is  not  a  Saviour  by  his  atoning  death  but  by  his 
teaching  and  example  which  exercise  an  elevating  and  therefore 
a  redeeming  influence  upon  us  all;  men  are  justified  not  through 
faith  in  another’s  righteousness  but  by  faithfulness  to  their  own 
conviction,  that  is,  by  the  earnest  endeavor  always  to  shape 
action  by  a  recognized  standard  of  duty.”28 

Interest  in  personal  salvation  is  represented  as  ignoble  as 
dependence  upon  a  prayer-answering  God.  Those  who  believe 
that  “individual  salvation  is  primary,”  says  Dr.  Fosdick  [ Chris - 
tianity  and  Progress]  “are  believers  in  a  narrow,  individualistic 
Christianity.”  So  Shaftesbury:  “A  policy  which  extends  itself 
to  another  world  and  considers  the  future  lives  and  happiness 
of  men  rather  than  the  present  has  made  us  leap  beyond  the 
bounds  of  natural  humanity.  The  saving  of  souls  is  now  the 
horrid  passion  of  exalted  spirits.”2* 


226  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Prof.  Lake  in  scornful  antiphon  responds  to  Shaftesbury. 


Of  the  expectation  of  a  future 
life,  “There  may  be  reason  to  ap¬ 
prehend  that  a  temper  of  this  kind 
will  extend  itself  through  all  the 
parts  of  life  .  .  .  creating  a  stricter 
attention  to  self-good  and  private 
interest  and  must  insensibly  di¬ 
minish  the  affection  toward  public 
good  or  the  interest  of  society.” — 
Shaftesbury,  Characters,  Vol.  2: 
58. 


“In  past  generations  to  attain 
salvation  was  thought  to  be  the 
object  of  existence.  It  is  not 
altogether  surprising  that  people 
who  argued  in  this  way  contrib¬ 
uted  little  to  the  improvement  of 
the  world.” — K.  Lake,  Immortal - 
ity  and  the  Modern  Mind,  21. 


And  Prof.  Elwood  takes  up  the  theme  which  Shaftesbury 
left  to  him  some  two  hundred  years  ago. 


“To  be  bribed  only  or  terrified 
into  our  honest  practise  bespeaks 
little  of  real  honesty  or  worth. 
.  .  .  How  shall  we  deny  that  to 
serve  God  by  compulsion  or  of 
interest  is  merely  servile  and  mer¬ 
cenary.” — Shaftesbury,  Vol.  1:92 
and  11:272. 


“In  the  theological  ages  of  the 
Christian  church  salvation  was 
often  represented  to  mean  essen¬ 
tially  escape  from  punishment  and 
assurance  of  bliss  in  a  life  beyond 
the  grave.  Thus  the  whole  con¬ 
ception  of  salvation  was  degraded 
to  a  refined  sort  of  selfishness.” — 
Elwood,  Reconstruction  of  Relig¬ 
ion,  144. 


Strauss  parrots  Plolbach  as  Holbach  parrots  the  ancients  and 
Profs.  Foster  and  Shotwell  parrot  Strauss.  Thus,  “The  Epi¬ 
curean  derivation  of  piety  from  fear  has  incontestably  a  good 
deal  of  truth  in  it.” — Strauss.  “If  we  go  back  to  the  beginning 
we  shall  always  find  that  ignorance  and  fear  have  created 
Gods.” — Holbach.  “The  history  of  religion  shows  that  belief  in 
God  dawned  in  the  identification  of  nature  powers  exciting  fear 
and  awe.” — Foster.  “Religion  is  the  reaction  of  mankind  to 
something  apprehended  but  not  comprehended.  The  ancients 
made  no  more  profound  discovery  than  that  fear  created  the 
gods.” — Shotwell.  Prof.  Paul  Elmer  More  traces  from  past  to 
present  a  kindred  theory  ( Bross  Lectures,  1921),  namely,  that 
religion  is  but  a  device  of  tyranny  to  enable  it  to  exploit  men. 
“Polybius,  the  Greek  historian  of  Rome,  expressed  the  idea. 
Tacitus  declared  religion  an  instrumentum  regni.  So  Boling- 
broke,  Holbach,  La  Mettrie,  Leslie  Stephen.  And  at  last  Mr, 
Dewey  is  renewing  the  old  cry  and  persuading  our  young  men 


Modernist  Antiques 


227 


that  religion  is  a  fallacy  of  the  reason  devised  to  maintain  the 
more  fortunate  classes  in  their  iniquitous  claims/’ 

The  eighteenth  century  sentimentalized  over  pagan  religion 
in  the  best  Parliament  of  Religion  style.  The  Chinaman  was 
the  especial  idealization  of  the  time.  “I  am  so  far  from  think¬ 
ing  the  maxims  of  Confucius  and  Jesus  Christ  to  differ  that  I 
think  the  plain  and  simple  maxims  of  the  former  will  help  to 
illustrate  the  more  obscure  ones  of  the  latter,”  wrote  the  deist, 
Matthew  Tindal.  Chubb,  also  a  deist,  had  as  lofty  an  opinion 
of  Islam.  “Whether  the  Mohammedan  revelation  be  of  a  divine 
original  or  not,  there  seems  to  be  a  plausible  pretence  arising 
from  the  circumstances  of  things  for  stamping  a  divine  char¬ 
acter  upon  it.”30  To  Chubb  it  mattered  not  “whether  a  man 
adopts  Judaism  or  Paganism  or  Mohammedanism  or  Chris¬ 
tianity,”  and  he  fortifies  this  opinion  with  the  favorite  text  of 
the  Enlightenment,  “In  every  nation  he  that  feareth  Plim  and 
worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  with  Him.”  “The  God  who 
works  in  Islam  [with  dripping  scimitar]  and  in  Buddhism 
[the  true  religious  opiate  of  the  East]  is  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  (Youtz,  The  Enlarging  Conception  of 
God.) 

So  Prof.  Strickland,  “We  dare  not  declare  these  great 
faiths  which  countless  millions  of  rational  beings  have  professed 
for  thousands  of  years  to  be  nothing  but  error  and  delusion”31 
[no,  not  even  if  “science”  may  do  so]. 

Not  only  is  the  substance  of  modernist  writing  a  repetition 
of  the  unbelief  of  the  past,  but  attitude,  style,  and  phrasing,  also. 
Shaftesbury  insists  on  his  “steady  orthodoxy  [as  Dr.  Fosdick 
on  his  evangelicism]  his  submission  to  the  truly  Christian 
doctrine  of  our  holy  church”  and  then  proceeds  to  flout  it  all 
along  the  line.  He  contends  that  in  rationalizing  religion  he 
is  “attempting  to  win  atheists  to  it.”  This,  too,  is  a  modern 
claim. 

The  Gospel  must  be  made  reasonable  in  order  to  “hold 
the  college  youth  to  the  church.”  “I  did  not,  nor  do  I  now, 
desire  to  disturb  the  faith  of  anyone,”  wrote  Strauss.  “Only 


228 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


where  these  are  already  shaken,  I  desire  to  point  out  the  direc¬ 
tion  in  which,  according  to  my  conviction,  a  firmer  soil  is  to  be 
found.” 33 

The  True  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  Asserted  is  the  title  of  the 
deist  Chubb’s  work.  Both  old  and  new  rationalists  play  the 
ethics  of  Jesus  against  the  gospel  of  redemption.  “No  system 
can  be  more  simple  and  plain  than  that  of  natural  religion  as 
it  stands  in  the  Gospel,”  wrote  Bolingbroke.  “Both  the  duties 
required  to  be  practised  and  the  propositions  required  to  be 
believed  are  concisely  and  plainly  enough  expressed  in  the 
original  Gospel  which  Christ  taught  and  which  his  four  evan¬ 
gelists  recorded.  But  they  have  been  alike  corrupted  by  theol¬ 
ogy.”34  So  also  Semler  in  Frederick  the  Great’s  day  contrasted 
“religion”  and  “theology”  in  the  usual  present-day  style. 

After  destroying  the  Bible’s  authority,  the  rationalists  of  the 
eighteenth  century  praise  the  ethical  residuum.  Roehr,  a  Ger¬ 
man  rationalist,  gives  us  this  sentence  which  might  well  have 
dripped  from  the  pen  of  Sanders  or  Kent:  “I  honor  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  the  most  precious 
treasure  of  religious  truths  from  which  with  the  help  of  a 
correct  grammatico-historical  exegesis,  can  be  made  a  scientific¬ 
ally  ordered  vehicle  for  a  pure  and  genuine  religion  of 
reason.”35 

“While  [criticism]  has  taken  away  a  certain  kind  of  rever¬ 
ence  which  after  all  was  merely  a  sort  of  superstition,”  writes 
Dr.  F.  G.  Lewis  of  Crozer,  “it  has  given  the  Bible  worth  and 
power  which  it  could  not  possess  before.  In  exchange  for  su¬ 
perficial  sacredness  there  has  been  given  knowledge,  light,  and 
strength.”36 

A  characteristic  trick  of  modernist  phrasing  of  kinship  to 
the  past  is  the  use  of  such  terms  as  “scholars  generally,”  “the 
consensus  of  learned  opinion,”  etc.  One  gets  this  in  C.  F.  Kent 
on  almost  every  tenth  page.  “  ‘Many  learned  men  pretend.’ 
Why  do  you  not  name  them?”  ask  the  Six  Jews  of  Voltaire. 
“We  have  always  an  ill  opinion  of  these  vague  quotations. 
‘Some  critiques  maintain.’  What  critiques,  sir?  By  not  naming 


Modernist  Antiques  229 

them  you  give  us  room  to  think  that  you  are  the  only  critique 
in  question.”37 

The  same  phrases  of  emancipation  are  on  the  lips  of  the 
Enlightenment  in  both  centuries.  “I  invite  all  timid  souls  out 
into  the  liberty  that  I  have  found,”  writes  the  pompous  Prof. 
W.  N.  Clarke  of  Colgate.38  “My  end  is  to  hold  forth  the 
acceptable  light  of  truth  which  makes  men  free,  enables  them 
to  break  the  bands  of  creed-makers  and  imposters  asunder  and 
to  cast  their  cords  from  them”  are  the  no  less  pompous  words 
of  the  deist  Annet.39  “Tolerance”  and  “enlightenment”  were 
the  two  watchwords  of  the  time.  Pens  overflowed  with  such 
expressions  as  duty,  common  welfare,  humanity.  Dr.  McCart¬ 
ney,  moderator  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  has  described  the 
modernist  of  Lower  Fifth  Avenue  as  “scattering  ashes;  talking 
pleasantly  about  Vision/  ‘service,’  ‘progress/  ‘toleration/  ”  Prof. 
Vischer  of  Halle  urged  pastors  “to  be  silent  concerning  the 
silly  stories  of  the  historical  Christ  since  people  of  standing 
no  longer  believe  them.”40  A  century  later  Dr.  Ambrose  Ver¬ 
non  of  the  Harvard  church  remarked  that  “people  in  Brookline 
will  not  believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth.”41  “As  for  us  we  will 
continue  to  turn  our  faces  towards  the  East,”  is  a  phrase  of 
Roehr’s  which  in  greater  or  less  variation  marks  modernist 
literature.  Adherents  of  evangelical  Christianity  Roehr  brands 
as  slaves  of  ignorance.  The  evangelical  revival  a  century  ago 
was  dubbed  “ das  neues  Obscurantentum.”  In  like  manner  Dr. 
Shailer  Mathews,  “Over  against  intelligence  in  religion  is  being 
organized  anti-intelligence,”  and  Dr.  Fosdick  after  picturing 
“fresh  young  minds  holding  new  ideas,  not  thinking  in  ancient 
[i.  e.,  eighteenth  century]  terms,”  describes  “the  educated  of 
the  Middle  West  as  seeking  their  religion  outside  the  church 
because  of  the  presence  of  fundamentalist  opinion  within 
it.”42 

On  the  one  side  science,  education,  light,  progress,  freshness, 
sun-rising,  freedom.  On  the  other  all  that  is  baroque  and 
gloomy.  Even  the  epithets  of  the  past  are  revived  by  the  mod¬ 
ernist  theologians  of  the  present.  Prof.  Youtz  of  Oberlin 


230 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


describes  the  worship  of  Jesus  as  “Christolatry,”  repeating  a 
century-old  word  of  Henke.  When  Prof.  G.  A.  Johnston  Ross 
applies  the  term  “bibliolatry”  to  an  evangelical  paper  he  borrows 
his  witticism  from  the  same  ancient  source. 

“Science”  is  of  course  monopolized  by  the  Enlightenment 
both  old  and  new.  The  word  falls  again  and  again  from  Tom 
Paine  as  if  he  really  captained  its  body-guard.  But  the  greatest 
figures  in  eighteenth  century  German  science,  Euler,  the  king 
of  mathematicians  and  A.  von  Haller,  the  founder  of  modern 
physiology,  made  public  affirmation  of  their  evangelical  faith. 
Euler’s  Defense  of  Revelation  against  the  Attacks  of  Free- 
thinking  affirms  that  the  alleged  difficulties  in  the  Christian 
religion  are  not  greater  than  those  with  which  mathematicians 
have  to  contend  and  insists  that  the  refusal  to  accept  the  Bible 
as  a  revelation  of  God  is  an  offense  of  the  will. 

These  few  parallels  are  the  meagre  selection  from  a  wholly 
casual  reading.  Sometime  perhaps  a  competent  historian  will 
work  out  a  careful  account  of  the  continuity  of  anti-Christian 
thought  from  the  Ebionites  and  Celsus  down  to  the  present 
faculties  of  American  theological  seminaries.  Such  a  work  will 
effectually  “outmode”  the  use  of  the  somewhat  inflated  term 
“the  modern  mind”  at  least  in  its  present  theological  con¬ 
text. 

But  it  should  also  be  noticed  that  the  tactics  of  eighteenth 
century  unbelief  have  been  plagiarized  as  well  as  its  theology. 
Claus  Harms’  67th  Thesis  read:  “It  is  a  strange  demand  that 
there  must  be  freedom  to  teach  a  new  belief  from  a  chair  which 
the  old  faith  has  established  and  from  a  mouth  which  the  old 
faith  feeds.  The  Scripture  is  fulfilled  ‘He  that  eateth  bread 
with  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me.’  Christians  should 
be  taught  that  they  have  the  right  not  to  suffer  non-Christian 
and  non-Lutheran  teaching  in  pulpit  and  in  school.”43  Calvin’s 
Theological  Academy  was  wholly  in  the  hands  of  modernists 
at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Huguenot  endow¬ 
ments  had  been  perverted  to  anti-Christian  ends  as  Puritan  ones 
with  us.  In  Francke’s  day  the  theological  faculty  at  Halle  was 


Modernist  Antiques 


231 


a  great  Christian  faculty  as  Andover’s  once  was.  In  twenty- 
nine  years  it  sent  out  6,000  clergymen  besides  thousands  educated 
in  the  Francke  orphanage.  Through  the  influence  of  Wolf 
and  Semler,  however,  it  was  “captured”  by  the  Enlighten¬ 
ment. 

Later  in  the  days  of  Gesenius  and  Wegscheider  the  holiest 
things  of  the  Bible  were  held  up  to  ridicule.  Wegscheider  pro¬ 
posed  the  question  in  his  seminary  one  day  whether  Christianity 
ought  to  be  altogether  abolished  to  give  way  to  a  better  religion. 
All  present  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Prof.  Hengstenberg  in  the 
Evang.  Kirchenzeitung  described  the  state  of  things  at  Halle. 
His  exposure  was  denounced  as  an  attempt  to  check  the  freedom 
of  teaching.  “The  scientific  results  of  modern  investigation 
would  be  destroyed  by  such  interference.”  The  government 
insisted  that  theological  chairs  should  be  held  only  by  those 
adhering  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Yet  by  the  familiar 
jockeying  the  two  professors  were  retained.  “The  whole  investi¬ 
gation  and  the  sophistical,  even  dishonest  character  of  the  de¬ 
fense  of  the  two  professors,”  says  Tischhauser,  “makes  on  the 
impartial  reader  the  most  painful  impression.”44 

When  the  evangelical  Tholuck  went  to  Halle  in  1826  the 
faculty  protested  against  his  appointment.  “I  began  my  ministry 
there  as  a  solitary  on  Patmos.”  Students  and  townspeople  were 
incited  against  him  as  against  a  hypocrite.  Haevernik,  another 
evangelical,  went  to  Rostock.  The  entire  class  left  the  room 
when  he  gave  expression  to  his  evangelical  opinions.  At  Mar¬ 
burg  the  professor  of  dogmatics  would  read  with  the  observa¬ 
tion  ad  futuram  oblivionem  [to  be  forgotten]  the  paragraphs 
of  his  textbook  which  had  to  do  with  the  person  of  Christ, 
justification  by  faith,  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  etc.  Gerok 
mentions  a  theological  class  at  Tuebingen  in  1834  all  but  three 
of  whom  denied  the  future  life.  In  Jena  professors  made  fun 
of  the  articles  of  religion  which  they  had  pledged  themselves  to 
teach.  A  Halle  student  testified  that  they  diligently  sought  to 
root  out  all  regard  for  the  Bible  and  its  contents;  another  that 
he  had  never  in  his  course  heard  a  quickening,  edifying  word 


232  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

from  those  in  theological  chairs.*  Kant  was  praised  as  a  second 
Christ.45 

Certainly  Continental  modernism  had  “captured”  the  theo¬ 
logical  schools.  Liberal  kleptomania  is  no  new  phenomenon.f 
And  as  evangelical  Christians  robbed  of  their  seminaries  are 
today  establishing  new  ones  in  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  and  else¬ 
where  so  those  who  had  the  good  of  the  church  at  heart  in 
the  early  nineteenth  century  started  evangelical  schools  in  Wit- 
temberg  and  Herborn  in  1817;  in  Gotha  in  1834;  in  Friedberg 
and  Wolfenbuettel  in  1837  and  at  Heidelberg,  Loccum,  Han¬ 
over,  and  Berlin  in  1838.40 

Creedal  obligations,  explicit  as  well  as  implicit,  were  disre¬ 
garded  with  as  little  scrupulousness  then  as  now.  Eighteenth 
century  rationalists  insisted  with  Semler  that  Jesus  “accommo¬ 
dated”  his  statements  to  the  ignorance  and  prejudices  of  the  time. 
Why  should  not  they  do  the  same?  When  Paulus  was  made 


^“Parents  who  sent  their  sons  to  the  university  to  listen  to  such  men 
as  Semler,  Thomasius,  and  Paulus  had  not  the  remotest  idea  that  insti¬ 
tutions  of  such  renown  for  learning  and  religion  were  at  the  very  time 
the  hotbeds  of  rank  infidelity.  Even  the  state  cabinets  that  controlled 
the  professional  chairs  could  not  believe  for  a  long  time  that  men  who 
had  been  chosen  to  teach  theology  were  spending  all  their  power  in 
corrupting  the  religious  sentiment  of  the  land.” — Hurst,  History  of 
Rationalism ,  251. 

•[Limitations  of  space  forbid  any  consideration  of  present-day  mod¬ 
ernist  intrigues  on  the  mission  field.  They  have,  however,  a  certain 
analogy  in  the  “capture”  of  the  early  nineteenth  century  Bible  societies 
of  the  Continent.  These  were  financed  by  unsuspecting  Christians  in 
England  through  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  and  while  refus¬ 
ing  Scriptures  to  such  apostolic  servants  of  Christ  as  Neff,  Pyt,  and 
Bost,  used  the  circulation  of  the  Bible  for  Unitarian  propaganda.  This 
they  did  by  writing  heretical  notes,  by  introducing  the  Apocrypha  and 
even  by  inserting  mis-translations.  The  purpose  “of  the  Socinian  party” 
according  to  Blumhardt  of  Basel,  in  binding  up  the  Apocrypha  with 
the  Bible  was  “to  obscure  and  lower  the  idea  of  inspiration.”  Fifty 
thousand  copies  of  Bibles  with  the  infidel  preface  of  Prof.  Haffner  of 
Strassburg  were  sent  out  under  the  aegis  of  the  British  society  before 
the  coup  was  discovered.  The  Heidelberg  rationalist  Paulus  was  active 
in  one  Bible  society,  the  persecuting  liberals  Levade,  Curtat,  and  Chene- 
viere  in  those  of  French  Switzerland.  Dean  Curtat  of  the  Lausanne 
Bible  Society  is  remembered  for  his  labored  apology  [in  a  theological 
essay]  for  card-playing  on  Sabbath  evenings.  His  arguments  were 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  on  the  subject! — 
Memoirs  of  James  and  Robert  Haldane,  Ch.  20. 


Modernist  Antiques 


233 


professor  at  Jena  he  expressed  to  his  colleague  Griesbach  his 
perplexity  because  his  theological  convictions  would  not  allow 
him  to  make  the  required  statement  of  faith.  Griesbach  helped 
him  out  by  saying  that  in  the  Confession  one  indeed  expressed 
his  esteem  for  the  Reformation  and  that  one  accepted  these 
expressions  in  so  far  as  they  agreed  with  the  true  and  reasonable 
content  of  the  Bible.  “I  promise  that  I  will  hold  closely  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  our  evangelical  Lutheran  church,  that  I  will  in  no 
particular  depart  from  it,  to  say  nothing  of  opposing  it.”  So 
swore  the  pastors  of  Bavaria.  Those  in  Saxony  took  similar 
creedal  obligations  though  hardly  a  dozen  in  the  kingdom  be¬ 
lieved  what  they  said.47  How  familiar  the  note  in  Reinhard’s 
System  of  Christian  Morality :  “It  is  required  of  no  one  who 
takes  his  oath  of  office  that  he  shall  always  hold  for  true  that 
which  he  now  holds  for  true.  That  would  exclude  all  growth 
in  religious  knowledge.”  “When  therefore  we  recite  the  creed 
our  first  care  is  not  as  to  whether  we  believe  each  article  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  early  interpretation,  whether  we  are  orthodox 
in  our  belief,  but  whether  we  express  in  our  lives  the 
belief  that  we  speak.”  (Bishop  William  Lawrence,  Fifty 
Years ,  98.) 

The  Scriptures  were  played  against  the  creed  as  if  the  latter 
were  not  a  condensation  of  Scripture  truth.  “Protestantism,” 
continues  Reinhard,  “recognizes  only  the  Holy  Scripture  as 
norm  of  belief.  Consequently  the  acceptance  of  the  symbol  is 
only  so  long  to  be  understood  as  one  is  not  convinced  by  other 
considerations.”  When  in  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention  at 
Indianapolis  in  1922  an  attempt  was  made  to  put  on  record 
the  evangelical  faith  of  Baptists  the  modernist  Dr.  Woelfkin 
substituted  a  general  affirmation  of  adhesion  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  for  a  statement  of  belief.48  This  was  the  old  trick  of 
rationalism.  Those  who  scoffed  at  the  historicity  and  doctrines 
of  the  New  Testament  asked  the  Prussian  government  to  abolish 
confessions  and  make  “the  New  Testament  the  sole  standard 
of  belief.”  So  in  England  Blackburne’s  agitation  culminated 


234 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


in  a  petition  to  Parliament  in  1772  asking  for  the  substitution 
of  a  statement  of  belief  in  Scripture  in  place  of  subscription  to 
the  Articles.  In  this  way  18th  century  free-thought  sought  to 
legitimatize  itself  in  the  Church  of  England.49 

Some  years  ago  there  was  a  professor  in  the  Boston  Uni¬ 
versity  School  of  Theology  whose  teaching  was  of  such  a  char¬ 
acter  that  the  students  themselves  complained  and  petitioned 
for  relief.  He  was  finally  removed,  passed  to  a  Universalist 
theological  school  and  was  ultimately  buried  from  the  [Unita¬ 
rian]  King’s  Chapel,  the  minister  declaring  him  a  martyr 
“stoned  by  the  church.”*  His  autobiography,  For  the  Benefit 
of  My  Creditors ,  is  a  publication  of  the  [Unitarian]  Beacon 
Press. 

Prof.  Mitchell  signed  the  declaration  required  of  all  theo¬ 
logical  professors,  of  his  sincere  acceptance  of  the  Doctrines 
and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church  [which  includes  the 
Apostles’  Creed]  to  teach  in  harmony  therewith.  He  also  made 
the  following  statement  to  Bishop  Andrews.  On  page  162  of 

*Prof.  Rauschenbusch  also,  we  are  told  in  the  Baptist,  was  “stoned 
by  the  Junkers,”  although  considering  his  theological  opinions  one  can¬ 
not  but  think  the  indulgence  accorded  him  as  professor  in  a  Christian 
institution  more  than  ample.  The  free-thinker  Bolingbroke,  after  re¬ 
marking  that  he  expects  to  be  “treated  with  scorn  and  contempt  by 
the  whole  theological  tribe  and  railed  at  as  an  infidel,”  declares  his 
purpose  “to  seek  for  genuine  Christianity  with  the  simplicity  with  which 
it  is  taught  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ  himself.” — Works,  Vol.  3,  330  and 
339. 

In  stating  the  conditions  on  which  he  would  assume  the  pastorate 
of  the  Rockefeller  church  Dr.  Fosdick  insisted  that  there  should  be  no 
creedal  conditions  for  membership.  When  the  Rev.  George  Putnam 
installed  another  Mr.  Fosdick  over  the  [Unitarian]  Hollis  Street  church 
two  generations  ago  he  said,  “There  is  no  other  Christian  body  of 
which  it  is  so  impossible  to  tell  where  it  begins  and  where  it  ends. 
We  have  no  recognized  principle  by  which  any  man  who  chooses  to 
be  a  Christian  disciple  and  desires  to  be  numbered  wTith  us,  whatever 
he  believes  or  denies,  can  be  excluded.”  The  Hollis  Street  Church 
is  long  since  dead  and  its  building  a  theatre. 

The  German  rationalist  Tzschirner  thought  that  “a  Christian  church 
might  comprehend  all  opinions  as  paganism  all  classes  of  divinities.” 
In  the  same  spirit  of  comprehension  Dr.  Fosdick  would  include  in  the 
church  all  “men  and  women  who  give  themselves  with  high  spirit  to 
human  service  in  science  or  philanthropy  but  who  never  think  of  attrib¬ 
uting  their  service  of  love  to  religious  motives.” — Christianity  and 
Progress,  241. 


Modernist  Antiques 


235 


his  autobiography  is  published  his  interpretation  explaining  away 
the  statement. 


“I  accept  the  Old  Testament  as 
divinely  authoritative,  recognizing 
a  supernatural  element  manifested 
in  miracles  and  prophecy. 

“I  accept  the  Gospel  statement 
respecting  Jesus’  advent  into  the 
world.  I  believe  in  the  Trinity 
including  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit. 


“I  believe  that  the  death  of 
Jesus  was  necessary  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  mankind.  I  have  not  and 
never  had  any  sympathy  with  the 
doctrines  of  Universalism.” 


“The  first  [statement]  neither 
declares  nor  implies  that  the  entire 
Old  Testament  is  divinely  authori¬ 
tative. 

“In  the  second  I  took  care  to  say 
that  I  accepted  the  teachings  of 
the  Gospel,  not  the  Apostles’  Creed 
or  any  particular  version  but  the 
concordant  testimony  of  evangel¬ 
ical  tradition  which  of  course  re¬ 
mained  to  be  determined. 

“The  third  did  not  commit  me 
to  any  particular  form  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity. 

“The  fourth  question  was  so  in¬ 
definite  that  I  might  have  an¬ 
swered  in  either  the  affirmative  or 
the  negative  or  in  both  ways. 

“In  my  fifth  statement  I  confined 
myself  to  the  denial  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  retribution.” 


Of  this  trifler  Prof.  Sharp  in  a  foreword  to  the  autobiography 
says:  “If  Jesus  had  a  brother  and  God  a  second  son  it  was 
Hinckley  Gilbert  Mitchell.”  < 

Dr.  Fosdick,  in  his  farewell  sermon  at  the  First  Presbyterian 
church,  described  himself  as  “a  heretic.”  In  the  early  church 
heretics  “went  out  from  us  because  they  were  not  of  us.”  The 
technique  of  the  Enlightenment,  both  old  and  new  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  very  different.  Dr.  Fosdick’s  colleague  at  Union, 
Prof.  Fagnani,  writing  In  Praise  of  Heresy ,  says  of  heretics: 
“One  who  really  cares  for  the  church  instead  of  resigning  and 
withdrawing  is  conscientiously  bound  to  remain  in  and  bring 
as  many  of  his  brethren  as  possible  around  to  his  way  of  think¬ 
ing,”  the  church  meanwhile  paying  his  bills  while  he  wrecks 
it.  Dr.  Rainsford  urges  young  men  to  enter  the  Episcopal  min¬ 
istry,  “to  stay  in  it,  and  fight  within  to  liberalize  it.”  So  David 
Hume  was  wont  to  urge  men  of  free-thinking  tendencies  to 
take  orders.50  In  1815  Dr.  Jeremiah  Evarts  writing  in  the 
Panoplist  describes  the  method.  “They  [Unitarians]  have 
clandestinely  crept  into  orthodox  churches  by  forbearing  to 


236 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


contradict  their  faith  and  then  have  gradually  moulded  them 
by  their  negative  preaching  to  the  shape  which  they  would 
wish.  The  people  after  a  while  never  hearing  of  the  atonement 
nor  of  special  grace  or  any  of  the  kindred  doctrines,  forget 
that  they  belong  to  the  Christian  system  and  by  and  by  regard 
a  man  as  a  kind  of  enthusiast  or  monster  who  preaches  such 
doctrines.  Who  does  not  see  that  there  is  great  cunning  in 
all  this?  But  the  honesty ?” 

Just  a  century  ago  (1825)  Prof.  Clausen,  a  rationalist  theo¬ 
logian  of  the  University  of  Copenhagen,  published  a  work  of 
800  pages  in  which  he  denied  the  Virgin  Birth,  the  existence 
of  evil  spirits,  the  atonement  and  the  divinity  of  Christ,  quite 
in  the  style  of  modern  Sadduceeism.  The  great  Danish  critic 
of  the  Enlightenment,  N.  S.  F.  Grundtvig,  called  him  sharply  to 
task  with  a  clean-cut  aut-aut.  How  familiar  the  words  sound. 
“As  an  honest  man  he  should  either  offer  to  the  Christian  church 
solemn  apology  for  his  un-Christian  and  offensive  teaching  or 
lay  down  his  office  and  discard  the  Christian  name.”51 

Eighty-eight  theological  students  sent  Clausen  an  address  of 
congratulation  as  the  five  hundred  buds  of  Mt.  Holyoke  College 
did  to  Dr.  Fosdick.  Clausen  sued  his  critic  for  violation  of 
academic  freedom.  The  professor  does  not  readily  share  “aca¬ 
demic  freedom”  with  others. 

The  rationalists  of  eighteenth  century  Germany  altered  the 
old  liturgies  to  suit  “modern  views.”  Biblical  expressions  were 
removed  and  the  Gospel  gave  place  to  moralizing  commonplaces. 
“It  makes  a  Christian  blush,”  says  Tischhauser,  “to  read  the 
dry  and  wordy  prayers  substituted  in  a  certain  Schleswig- 
Holstein  liturgy.”  The  introduction  of  these  liturgies  caused 
protests  which  in  some  cases  had  to  be  repressed  by  military 
force. 

The  creed  was  in  certain  instances  omitted  from  the  baptis¬ 
mal  formula  and  the  words  of  institution  from  the  communion. 
In  the  communion  service  one  is  represented  as  recovering  self- 
respect.  Children  were  baptized  into  the  imitation  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  great  pattern  of  all  virtue.  Allusion  to  angels,  the 


Modernist  Antiques 


237 


coming  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  judg¬ 
ment  were  omitted.  “They  must  not  think  that  we  laymen 
do  not  understand  what  is  happening,”  wrote  “a  Schleswig- 
Holstein  judge”  in  an  anonymous  pamphlet.  “They  explain 
away,  philosophize  away,  ridicule  away  one  mystery,  one  proph¬ 
ecy,  one  miracle  after  another,  till  only  a  ‘religion  of  reason’ 
is  left.  Formerly  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  his  atonement 
together  with  his  teaching  and  example,  were  all.  Now  one 
hardly  hears  of  him  and  his  great  work  on  earth  is  no  longer 
named. 

“Formerly  preaching  was  in  biblical  language  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  plain  man’s  comprehension.  Now  in  many  pas¬ 
sages  they  teach  what  Zollikofer,  Beier,  Bahrdt  and  the  rest 
inspire  whether  it  agrees  with  the  Bible  or  not.  Formerly 
nearly  every  priest  had  the  confidence  of  his  parish.  Now  there 
reigns  in  many  parishes  doubt  and  suspicion.  Why  are  they 
so  eager  to  introduce  the  [altered]  service?  Because  with  the 
formularies  the  doctrines  are  changed.  Many  doctrines  which 
our  fathers  and  we  still  hold  as  essential  parts  of  the  Lutheran 
belief  are  suppressed  or  mentioned  in  such  a  way  that  a  plain 
Christian  can  with  difficulty  find  them  while  every  Unitarian 
will  accept  with  joy  the  collects  and  teaching  of  the  [nezv] 
service/'52 

Bishop  Neeley  has  described  similar  attempts  to  denature  the 
ritual  of  the  American  Methodist  Church  [The  Revised  Ritual 
of  1916 ].  A  commission  on  revision  was  appointed  in  1912 
which  reported  in  1916.  Fortunately  this  report  was  turned 
over  to  the  bishops  by  the  General  Convention  at  Saratoga 
in  1920  and  many  of  the  worst  excisions  were  restored.  But 
numerous  significant  mutilations  still  remain. 

The  Apostles’  Creed  was  dropped  from  the  service  of  baptism 
of  those  of  riper  years.  Substituted  therefor  was  the  question, 
“Dost  thou  receive  and  profess  the  Christian  faith  as  contained 
in  the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?” 

In  the  form  for  receiving  persons  into  the  church  the  com¬ 
mission  omitted  the  question,  “Do  you  believe  in  the  doctrines 


238 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  set  forth  in  the  Articles  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church?”  This  takes  from  the  incoming 
members  of  the  Methodist  church  any  obligation  to  accept  the 
articles  of  religion  and  it  is  done  without  any  constitutional 
change,  abrogation,  or  suspension  of  the  said  articles. 

In  place  of  the  old  question,  “Have  you  saving  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ?”  is  substituted,  “Do  you  receive  and  pro¬ 
fess  the  Christian  faith  as  contained  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?” 

From  the  order  of  adult  baptism  is  omitted,  “Dearly  beloved, 
forasmuch  as  all  men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  and  they  that  are  in  the  flesh 
cannot  please  God  but  live  in  sin.”  This  statement  of  the 
tainted  nature  of  man  is  not  pleasant  for  neo-Unitarians  to 
read  in  church.* 

*Dr.  Harold  Paul  Sloan  writes  in  The  New  Infidelity  and  the  New 
Reformation,  25: 

“Within  six  months  in  a  preachers’  meeting  in  the  East  a  statement 
was  made  by  a  man  of  prominence  in  Methodism  whose  word  would 
be  generally  accepted  if  we  should  publish  his  name,  that  twenty-five 
years  ago  a  group  of  men  met  in  Boston  and  agreed  together  to  work 
for  the  liberalizing  of  the  Methodist  church.  He  pointed  out  that  their 
procedure  should  be  along  four  lines. 

First,  the  putting  of  a  chair  of  English  Bible  taught  by  a  man  of 
rationalist  sympathy  in  the  various  colleges  of  Methodism. 

Second,  liberalizing  the  Book  Concern. 

Third,  liberalizing  of  the  ritual. 

Fourth,  liberalizing  of  the  Course  of  Study. 

Bishop  Neeley  intimates  that  this  program  is  being  worked  out.  He 
writes:  “If  a  fraction  of  the  current  statements  on  this  point  are  correct 
there  is  an  anti-Methodist  school  of  thought  working  through  a  few 
aggressive  individuals  to  compel  the  church  to  accept  its  viewTs  and 
at  the  present  time  to  accomplish  this  without  constitutionally  changing 
the  Articles  of  Religion  or  other  standards  of  doctrine.  The  method  is 
not  that  of  the  open  and  frontal  attack  but  of  the  sapper  and  miner. 

“One  way  is  to  reach  and  mis-teach  the  more  than  four  millions  of 
children  and  young  people  in  the  Sunday-schools  through  Sunday-school 
literature.  If  they  can  do  that  for  a  few  years,  even  five,  they  will 
indoctrinate  these  millions.  The  few  who  are  manipulating  these  mat¬ 
ters  are  strategists  of  no  mean  order  and  they  mean  if  they  can  to 
revolutionize  doctrinal  Methodism.  They  are  the  reds  inside  the  church. 

“Another  way  is  to  produce  and  have  spread  with  the  imprint  of 
the  church  publishing-house,  denominational  literature  containing  anti- 
Methodist  teaching  which  the  general  and  loyal  membership  will  buy 
and  read  supposing  that,  as  it  comes  from  the  church,  it  must  be  sound. 


Modernist  Antiques 


239 


From  the  service  for  consecration  of  bishops  after  the  Veni 
Creator  Spiritus  the  expression  is  struck  out  “and  the  author 
of  everlasting  life,”  referring  to  Christ.  Also  from  the  prayer 
in  the  same  passage,  “thine  only  and  dearly  beloved  son  Jesus 
Christ,”  the  word  “only’*  as  if  to  change  the  status  which  the 
church  recognizes  in  Christ  as  the  only-begotten  son  of  God. 

The  old  question  to  the  bishops  at  ordination,  “Are  you 
ready  with  faithful  diligence  to  banish  and  drive  away  all  erro¬ 
neous  and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God’s  Word  and  both 
privately  and  openly  to  call  upon  and  encourage  others  to  the 
same?”  was  cut  out.  Also  the  question,  “Will  you  deny  all 
ungodliness,  etc.,  that  the  adversary  may  be  ashamed,  having 
nothing  to  say  against  you  ?”  It  is  not  good  form  in  these  circles 
to  mention  “the  adversary”  so  out  he  goes  from  the  Methodist 
ritual. 

Eighteenth  century  modernists  in  Germany  doctored  cate¬ 
chisms,  cutting  out  the  new  birth,  the  atoning  work  of  Christ, 
and  mangling  quotations  from  Luther  and  the  Bible.  Mention 
has  been  made  of  Unitarian  sun-worship.  One  of  the  eighteenth 
century  German  catechisms  began  with,  “What  is  the  first  and 
best  thing  of  all?”  A  ns.  “The  first  and  best  thing  of  all  is  the 
sun.”  “What  is  the  greatest  and  loftiest  of  all  things?”  Ans. 
“The  starry  heavens.”53  In  another  catechism  the  passage, 
“All  Scripture  is  given  by  God”  becomes,  “Every  book  in  which 
God’s  will  is  displayed”  is  inspired. 

“Another  way,  but  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  a  very  influential 
way,  is  to  slip  into  professors’  chairs  in  various  institutions  men  who 
both  believe  and  promote  anti-Methodist  thought.  In  this  way  the 
school-men  and  educated  classes  are  to  be  reached  and  the  literary  and 
scientific  institutions  will  send  out  every  year  their  hundreds  of  gradu¬ 
ates,  a  more  or  less  percentage  of  whom  will  spread  the  un-Methodist 
instruction  they  have  received. 

“Then  as  a  way  of  controlling  the  incoming  ministry  the  Course  of 
Study  is  to  be  changed  by  throwing  out  sound  and  standard  Methodist 
books  and  introducing  those  that  cannot  make  true  ministers. 

“And  now  it  looks  like  an  effort  to  control  the  general  membership 
and  the  congregations  by  a  revised  ritual. 

“Nothing  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  by  this  little  company  of 
designers  and  if  this  goes  on  for  a  few  years  more  the  most  disastrous 
consequences  must  follow.” 


240 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


For  the  ten  commandments  they  substituted  a  modern  code, 
“Do  good  for  virtue’s  sake”  and  the  like.  It  recalls  Prof.  G.  H. 
Betts’  “Ten  Purposes,”  “I  will  respect  and  take  care  of  my 
body,”  “I  will  take  pride  in  work  and  thrift,”  and  the  rest. 
The  Shorter  Bible  of  Prof.  Kent  is  no  new  invention.  The  old 
Enlightenment  was  as  bent  as  the  new  on  cutting  out  uncon¬ 
genial  doctrines  from  the  Scriptures.  Thus  in  1790  was  printed 
Schneider’s  The  Bible  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in  Ex¬ 
tract  According  to  Ethical  Content .  Pastor  Zerrener  of  Magde¬ 
burg  issued  a  Little  School  Bible  for  Children  Adapted  to  the 
Needs  of  the  Time  and  with  the  Elimination  of  All  that  is 
Objectionable  [i.  e.,  miracles,  etc.]  In  fact  so  many  of  these 
“shorter”  Bibles  were  put  into  circulation  that  the  Prussian 
government  finally  felt  called  to  order  that  only  complete  Bibles 
should  be  used  in  the  schools.54 

Unitarian  denaturizing  of  Christian  hymns  is  an  old  game. 
I  noticed  lately  in  the  refrain  of  “Till  we  meet  again”  that 
the  original  line  “Till  we  meet  at  Jesus’  feet”  is  metamorphosed 
into  “Till  we  meet  in  union  sweet.” 55  The  eighteenth  century 
Enlightenment  also  doctored  hymnbooks.  References  to  char¬ 
acteristic  evangelical  ideas  were  removed.  When  the  Saxon 
hymnbook  was  published  in  1793  the  government  expressly 
forbade  doctrinal  tampering.  On  Good  Friday  in  a  church  near 
Greifswald  it  came  to  a  wild  tumult  when  the  rationalist 
Hessian  hymnbook  was  brought  in  and  the  excellent  evangelical 
one  excluded.  In  1807  new  and  rationalist  hymns  were  forced 
on  the  churches  of  Holland  and  their  use  made  obligatory. 

Under  the  lead  of  Pastor  Sintenis  of  Magdeburg  a  union  of 
rationalist  clergymen  not  unlike  the  Modern  Churchmen’s 
League  was  organized  taking  the  name  of  “The  Friends  of 
Light.”  Attempts  to  popularize  the  assured  results  of  the  Tue¬ 
bingen  criticism  were  undertaken.  “Their  advocates  openly  an¬ 
nounced,”  quite  in  the  manner  of  the  American  devotees  of 
“Religious  Education,”  “that  the  new  critical  opinions  must 
conquer  a  place  in  home  and  school.”  “It  is  our  duty  to  pub¬ 
lish  on  the  housetop  what  science  has  revealed  to  us.  If  oppo- 


Modernist  Antiques 


241 


sition  to  Christianity  is  to  be  effectual  it  must  descend  from 
the  heights  of  science  to  the  ranks  of  the  people.”  How  the 
comparison  between  past  and  present  modernisms  covers  at 
every  point  is  seen  by  comparing  Prof.  Machen’s  Christianity 
and  Liberalism  with  Prof.  August  Hahn’s  inaugural  discussion 
in  Leipzig  University  in  1827.  Hahn  shows  that  rationalism 
and  Christianity  were  opposing  opinions,  that  the  rationalists 
could  no  longer  call  themselves  Christians.56 

Claus  Harms’  theses  described  the  confusion  which  the  mod¬ 
ernism  of  his  day  had  brought  into  church  life. 

“It  brings  confusion  into  the  creeds  which  are  nothing  but 
clear  universally  accepted  interpretations  of  the  Holy  Scripture ; 
confusion  into  the  authorized  church  services,  hymnbooks,  and 
catechisms  to  which  the  public  preaching  in  many  places  is  in 
sharp  and  dreadful  opposition ;  confusion  among  teachers  where 
one  teaches  the  old  and  the  other  the  new  belief;  confusion  with 
other  churches.  Each  is  founded  on  the  Bible  with  varying 
interpretations  concerning  which  they  have  agreed  to  say  ‘You 
accept  that  interpretation  and  we  this  and  so  we  can  love  and 
esteem  each  other.’  But  rationalists  know  no  interpretation  save 
that  which  each  makes  for  himself  and  for  the  day.” 

It  is  hard  for  us  of  the  twentieth  century  with  its  powerful 
evangelicism  to  realize  how  completely  a  Unitarian  modernism 
had  captured  the  churches  of  eighteenth  century  Europe.  A 
believer  in  revelation  could  hardly  be  found  among  the  Luth¬ 
eran  superintendents  in  North  Germany.  A  statement  of  the 
consistory  of  Baden  in  1799  remarked  that  most  of  the  young 
candidates  for  the  ministry  showed  strong  tendency  to  dissolve 
Christianity  into  a  mere  naturalistic  morality.  Christianity  was 
spoken  of  in  the  tone  of  Prof.  Shotwell  as  “an  outworn  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  past  whose  complete  disappearance  from  the  face 
of  the  earth  was  greatly  desirable.”  Serious  proposals  were  made 
to  transform  the  clergy  into  school-masters.  When  in  1811  a 
Dresden  preacher  of  cultivation  and  talent  dwelt,  in  an  im¬ 
portant  city  church,  on  the  divinity  of  Christ  there  was  uni¬ 
versal  surprise  and  in  all  the  tea  circles  it  was  asked  how  a  man 


242 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


of  such  rare  gifts  could  fall  to  such  oddities.  Pastor  Pflaum  in 
1816  said  [what  Dr.  Hilary  Richardson  has  recently  said  of  his 
Unitarian  co-religionists  in  scathing  terms]  that  for  decades 
Protestants  had  ceased  to  concern  themselves  with  the  Bible. 
Also  that  many  preachers  were  profoundly  opposed  to  its  study. 
When  the  evangelical  Lindner  was  appointed  to  the  chair  of 
exegesis  in  Leipzig  University  he  was  described  by  the  students 
as  the  sole  representative  of  an  orthodoxy  which  had  been  de¬ 
stroyed  by  science — a  man  clinging  to  a  sinking  wreck.57 

In  Norway,  Bishop  Bang  tells  us,  “this  rationalism  had  ob¬ 
tained  a  control  the  extent  of  which  it  is  now  difficult  to  form 
any  conception.  Taught  in  the  University  of  Copenhagen  where 
the  Norwegian  pastors  were  trained,  preached  from  most  pul¬ 
pits,  smuggled  into  the  common  schools  and  by  papers  and  books 
into  the  villages,  it  moved  as  a  plague  over  the  whole  spiritual 
life  of  the  nation.  Under  its  supposed  ‘enlightenment’  the  dark¬ 
ness  was  so  great  that  daylight  seemed  gone  forever.”58 

Wilhelm  Beck  was  the  son  of  a  leading  Danish  pastor,  an 
upright  man.  “But,”  he  tells  us  in  his  Memoirs ,  “of  Christianity 
there  was  no  trace  in  our  home, — no  prayer,  no  hymns,  no  talk 
about  the  things  of  God’s  kingdom.  I  never  learnt  to  pray  as 
a  child.”  This  man,  who  later  renewed  the  religious  life  of 
Denmark,  was  in  his  university  days  an  unbeliever  and  Christ- 
denier;  also  a  student  for  the  ministry.  Rationalist  priests 
preached  to  empty  churches  and  the  week  was  spent  in  drinking 
and  dancing.  Beck’s  fellow-theological  students  “swore  like 
butchers,  were  passionate  card-players  and  veritable  dance-horses 
in  the  exclusive  balls  of  Copenhagen.  From  the  professors  we 
received  no  Christian  impulses  for  the  awakening  of  the  real 
life  of  faith.”59 

The  English  church  was  drenched  with  rationalism  although 
it  was  giving  the  world  some  of  the  greatest  apologists  of 
Christianity,  Clarke,  Waterland,  Butler,  Warburton  and  Paley. 
Its  spiritual  life  was  at  the  lowest  ebb.  This  period  was  also 
“the  midnight  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.”  Scotch  “Moder- 
atism”  bore  a  strong  family  resemblance  to  American  modern- 


Modernist  Antiques 


243 


ism.  Hugh  Miller  in  his  famous  defense  of  Christian  missions 
before  the  General  Assembly  described  it  as  “an  infidelity  that 
purported  to  be  anti-Christian  on  Bible  authority .  While  it 
robed  itself  in  th@  habiliments  of  unbelief  it  took  the  liberty  of 
lacing  them  with  Scripture  edgings.”60  Very  many  of  the  clergy 
were  Unitarian,  for  the  infidelity  of  Hume  and  Adam  Smith, 
after  infecti-ng  the  universities,  had  passed  into  the  ministry. 
Catechisms  along  Socinian  [Le.,  Unitarian]  lines  were  printed 
and  used  in  schools.  “The  dead  chill  of  Socinianism  rested  on 
the  Presbyterianism  of  the  North  of  Ireland”  and  non-conform¬ 
ist  minister  there  was  practically  synonymous  with  Unitarian. 
In  Geneva  the  successors  of  Calvin  were  regarded  by  the  French 
Encyclopaedists  as  allies.  In  1825  Ami  Bost  wrote: 

“For  more  than  thirty  years  the  ministers  who  have  gone  out 
of  our  schools  of  theology  to  serve  either  the  churches  of  our 
land  or  of  France  have  not  received  one  single  lecture  on  the 
truths  which  exclusively  belong  to  revelation,  such  as  the  re¬ 
demption  of  mankind  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  justification 
of  the  sinner  by  faith,  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  the  divinity 
of  our  Saviour.  In  theology  we  were  taught  nothing  but  the 
dogmas  of  natural  religion.  The  extent  to  which  this  practical 
incredulity  was  carried  is  clear  from  this  fact,  elsewhere  un¬ 
heard  of  in  the  annals  of  the  Protestant  churches,  that  excepting 
for  a  lecture  in  the  Hebrew  language  when  the  Bible  was  used 
simply  as  a  Hebrew  textbook  and  not  for  anything  it  contained, 
the  Word  of  God  was  never  used  throughout  our  course;  in 
particular  the  New  Testament  never  appeared  either  as  a  lan¬ 
guage  book  or  for  any  other  purpose.  There  was  no  need  of  the 
New  Testament  whatever  in  order  to  complete  our  four  years 
course  in  theology.”61 

The  completeness  of  the  victory  which  modernism  had  won 
over  the  Christian  faith  is  clear  from  its  persecution  of  it. 
“Toleration”  was  the  peculiar  virtue  which  the  Enlightenment 
emphasized  but  it  was  not  toleration  for  evangelical  Christi¬ 
anity.  Those  who  distributed  tracts  or  held  prayer-meetings 
or  gave  away  Bibles  were  constantly  persecuted  by  the  liberals. 


244 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


Especially  vindictive  was  the  general  superintendent  Roehr  in 
Goethe’s  Weimar  who  “as  a  spider  from  the  middle  of  his  web, 
watched  the  least  movement  at  its  edge  for  some  traveling 
Wuppertal  student  giving  out  tracts.”  A  correspondent  in  the 
rationalist  Allg.  Kirchenzeitung  reported  conversation  with  a 
peasant  who  attended  cottage  meetings. 

“Why,”  he  asked,  “do  the  clergy  rave  against  us  when  they 
are  silent  regarding  the  sins  of  their  fellow  worldlings  to  which 
they  give  their  approval  in  word  and  deed.  We  know  that  the 
church  is  full  of  men  who  describe  the  Bible  as  fable,  deny  that 
man  is  made  in  God’s  image,  deny  that  this  image  must  be 
renewed,  that  man  is  fallen.  From  the  universities  we  can  look 
for  no  other  pastors  than  these,  infected  with  this  poison.  There¬ 
fore  unlettered  people  in  city  and  country  who  hold  to  God’s 
Word  have  services  among  themselves  with  Bible  and  old  evan¬ 
gelical  sermon  books.  As  a  consequence  we  suffer  much  secret 
persecution  and  abuse  from  parsons  and  people  who  call  them¬ 
selves  ‘enlightened.’  These  set  detectives  on  us  and  the 
like.” 

To  some  this  persecution  became  so  unendurable  that  they  left 
their  homes  to  seek  elsewhere  the  right  to  worship  as  conscience 
dictated.  The  Kornthal  and  Wilhelmsdorf  colonies  were  made 
up  of  those  who  would  not  use  the  rationalist  liturgy  of  Wuer- 
temburg  and  the  original  South  Russian  colonies  of  Swabian 
pietiests  consisted  of  men  who  left  Germany  for  the  same  rea¬ 
son.  Out  of  this  emigration  came  the  great  Stundist  or  evangel¬ 
ical  movement  of  modern  Russia.62  A  vivid  chapter  for  a  His¬ 
tory  of  Liberal  Intolerance  could  be  made  up  of  the  persecu¬ 
tions  to  which  the  Christian  Reformed  seceders  from  the  state 
church  of  Holland  were  subjected  at  the  hands  of  early  nine¬ 
teenth  century  Dutch  modernists.'* 

In  Norway  Hauge  was  imprisoned  nine  times  before  his  last 
terrible  ten-year  imprisonment  at  the  hands  of  Norwegian 

*In  Holland  these  separatists  who  had  left  the  state  church  because 
of  its  Unitarianism  were  at  the  instance  of  the  synod  prosecuted  by  the 
government.  A  clause  of  the  Code  Napoleon  which  forbade  the  assembly 
of  more  than  twenty  persons  for  worship  without  consent  of  the  author-. 


Modernist  Antiques 


245 


liberals.  These  last  made  no  attempt  to  alleviate  his  prison 
sufferings  but  they  provided  him  with  Voltaire’s  works  in  the 
hope  of  breaking  down  his  faith  in  evangelical  Christianity. 
H  is  followers  were  tracked  and  jailed.  Meetings  were  broken 
up.  Evangelicals  coming  to  the  communion  were  driven  away 
by  liberal  priests,  horsewhip  in  hand.  People  were  arrested  for 
merely  reading  Hauge’s  writings.  Finally  the  government  at 
the  instance  of  the  modernist  party  ordered  the  surrender  of 
all  copies.  “I  have  talked  wdth  old  people,”  relates  Bishop 
Bang,  “who  told  me  what  an  impression  the  command  to  sur¬ 
render  Hauge’s  books  made  upon  them;  how  many,  as  the  old 
martyrs,  preferred  punishment  to  letting  go  these  precious  books 
which  had  been  such  a  blessing  to  them :  how  they  secreted  them 
in  garrets  and  cellars  and  read  them  unobserved.”63  All  this 
happened  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  the 
full  blaze  of  the  Enlightenment  after  a  generation  of  liberal 
theology  had  shaped  and  controlled  the  churches  of  Scandinavia. 
In  Sweden  liberal  fanatics  like  Bishop  Wingard  subjected  the 
Schartauan  preachers,  who  were  recreating  West  Swedish  re¬ 
ligious  and  moral  life,  to  constant  persecution,  persecution  to 
which,  as  Schartau’s  biographer  tells  us,  a  strikingly  large 
number  succumbed  in  early  life. 

In  1799  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
by  unanimous  vote  prohibited  all  persons  from  preaching  in  any 
place  under  their  jurisdiction  unless  licensed.  The  interpellation 
which  led  to  this  vote  described  the  evangelical  preachers  [and 

ities  gave  the  necessary  pretext  for  the  persecution.  Even  in  the  middle 
of  the  last  century  the  rationalist  clergy  of  the  Danish  state  church 
locked  the  churches  against  the  revival.  The  people  were  driven  into 
the  woods  only  finally  to  build  more  than  four  hundred  mission  houses. 
The  Inner  Mission  of  Baden  has  just  published  (1924)  a  report  on 
the  occasion  of  its  75th  jubilee.  It  states  that  in  1830  when  “a  watery 
and  unbiblical  catechism”  was  introduced  only  seven  clergymen  could 
be  found  in  the  wdiole  electorate  to  protest  against  it  and  when  as  late 
as  1848  Pastor  Nein  in  an  assembly  of  seventy-one  clergymen  affirmed 
his  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  he  was  greeted  with  protests  and 
laughter.  In  1824  the  Baden  synod  drew  up  a  resolution  asking  the 
state  to  proceed  against  “pietists”  and  prevent  them  from  holding 
meetings.  But  the  Grand  Duke  Leopold  refused.  The  state  church  of 
Baden  is  today  predominatingly  evangelical. 


246 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


the  boorishness  is  accentuated  by  the  fact  that  the  Haldanes 
were  of  the  best  family  connections  in  Scotland]  as  “vagrant 
teachers”  and  classed  “Sunday  schools,  irreligion,  and  anarchy” 
in  a  common  denunciation. 

The  procurator  of  the  church  was  authorized  to  proceed 
legally  against  teachers  of  Sunday  schools  on  the  strength  of 
some  obsolete  Act  of  the  Scottish  parliament.  It  was  not  due 
to  “the  Moderates,”  to  the  Blairs  and  Carlyles  and  Moodies 
and  Hills,  that  there  was  not  actual  persecution.  Dr.  Hugh 
Blair  who  instigated  this  action  was  the  friend  of  Hume  and 
other  unbelieving  philosophers.  Even  the  Relief  Synod,  quite 
in  the  spirit  of  the  present-day  Hobens  and  Mathewses,  decreed 
“that  no  minister  shall  give  or  allow  his  pulpit  to  be  given  to 
any  person  who  has  not  attended  a  regular  course  of  philosophy 
and  divinity  in  some  of  the  universities  of  the  nation.”64 

This  action  called  out  by  the  great  Christian  revival  associ¬ 
ated  with  the  Haldanes  was  duplicated  soon  after  Robert  Hal¬ 
dane  began  his  ministry  in  Geneva.  By  the  Reglement  of  May 
3,  1817,  theological  students  before  they  could  be  ordained 
were  obliged  to  sign  certain  articles  which  committed  them  not 
to  preach  the  fundamental  Christian  doctrines — the  deity  of 
Christ,  original  sin,  the  doctrine  of  grace,  etc.  M.  Pyt  and 
M.  Guers,  two  students,  when  ordered  to  state  their  faith  did 
so  in  the  language  of  the  venerable  confession  of  the  French 
church  to  which  so  many  Huguenot  martyrs  had  sealed  their 
adhesion  with  blood.  The  professor  declared  this  evangelical 
creed  enough  to  make  “brigands.”  They  were  denied  ordination 
and  with  Gonthier,  Bost,  Empeytaz,  Porchat,  FHuillier  and 
others  driven  out  of  the  church.  The  saintly  Malan  was  de¬ 
prived  of  his  ministerial  and  academic  offices.  D’Aubigne  was 
sent  out  of  Switzerland;  Gaussen  deposed.  Du  Vivier,  preach¬ 
ing  in  the  Oratory  of  Carouge,  asserted  the  divinity  of  Christ 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  The  Venerable  Company 
[the  ministerial  association  of  Geneva]  denounced  this  teaching 
as  “scandalous”  and  ordered  that  no  student  should  henceforth 
be  allowed  to  preach  unless  his  discourse  had  been  submitted 


M o demist  A ntiques 


247 


to  three  professors,  one  of  them  the  persecuting  rationalist  Prof. 
Cheneviere.  When  Haldane  went  to  the  French  seminary 
city  of  Montauban  the  Socinians  sought  the  help  of  the  French 
government  against  him  but  this  was  refused.65 

Twentieth  century  modernism  confines  itself  to  intrigue.  It  is 
not  powerful  enough  to  persecute.  Yet  the  spirit  of  intolerance 
is  not  wanting.  “One  of  the  radical  leaders  warned  me,”  says 
Dr.  Massee,  “that  it  was  their  purpose,  having  captured  the 
schools  and  trained  their  leadership,  having  captured  the  de¬ 
nominational  machinery  and  controlled  its  officials,  to  make  it 
impossible  for  a  conservative  theologian  or  minister  to  preach 
in  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention.”  One  rationalist  of  eight¬ 
eenth  century  Germany,  insisting  that  the  true  path  of  theo¬ 
logical  education  should  pass  through  philosophy  to  the  Bible , 
adds,  “What  in  the  world  can  we  expect  of  a  great  part  of  the 
future  clergy  when  many  theological  students  reverse  this  order 
and  use,  as  key  to  the  Scriptures,  tracts  from  Basel.”  He  urges 
the  theological  professors  to  intensify  their  examinations  so  that 
these  evangelical  students  may  fail  to  pass  and  so  be  kept  out 
of  the  ministry.  Others  suggest  that  students  with  these  con¬ 
victions  be  sent  to  the  foreign  field  [where  fevers  do  their 
work].  Flow  little  different  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  Century 
of  Chicago  when  writing  of  the  Moody  Bible  Institute,  or  of 
Prof.  Bacon  in  his  address  at  the  centennial  anniversary  of  the 
founding  of  the  Yale  Divinity  School,  railing  at  “Bible  insti¬ 
tutes  and  similar  organizations  which  are  turning  out  practi¬ 
tioners  by  the  wholesale.  .  .  .  Wild-cat  institutions  .  .  .  theo¬ 
logical  charlatanism  victimizing  a  helpless  public  by  pretensions 
on  which  no  competent  authority  has  passed  .  .  .  vampires  that 
prey  upon  the  weakness  of  the  human  soul.” 

To  the  triumph  of  modernism  corresponded  the  collapse  of 
popular  morality.  The  churches  of  Germany  were  empty;  the 
services  largely  omitted.  In  Mecklenburg  the  great  majority 
of  the  clergy  were  liberals.  They  had  largely  given  up  holding 
funeral  services.  The  dead  were  registered  by  them,  fees  were 
paid,  names  entered  in  the  church  books  but  prayer  and  funeral 


248 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


addresses  omitted.  Apparently  they  had  no  Christian  comfort 
to  offer,  for  “the  philosophy  of  the  death-bed  is  not  that  of  the 
university.”  The  six  newspapers  of  Hamburg  were  constantly 
attacking  pietism  and  defending  paganism  and  suicide.  Indecent 
matter  was  freely  printed  in  them.  “What  a  negative  period 
it  is,”  remarked  one  of  the  time.  “Everybody  steals;  nobody 
gives.  Everybody  destroys;  none  builds.  There  is  no  earnest¬ 
ness;  all  is  frivolity;  no  dignity,  no  purpose.”  Peasants  would 
travel  long  distances  to  take  the  communion  from  pastors  who 
lived  more  decently  than  their  own.  When  Stier  was  a  country 
pastor  he  was  surrounded  by  rationalist  clergy  in  all  the  neigh¬ 
boring  parishes.  A  number  of  them  gathered  to  celebrate  the 
communion.  After  dinner  the  time  was  spent  in  reading  vulgar 
anecdotes.  When  Stier  suggested  other  reading  on  so  serious 
an  occasion  the  answer  was  loud  laughter.  He  took  his  hat  and 
left.66 

“Perhaps  never  since  there  was  an  evangelical  church,”  writes 
Tischhauser,  “was  the  churchly  and  religious  and  moral  life 
so  low.  Never  such  looseness  in  morals,  never  so  widely  current 
a  spirit  of  despair.  Everything  positive  in  religious  belief  and 
practise  was  in  solution  and  the  foundations  of  the  church  were 
shaken  to  the  depths.  In  1786  Nicolai  declared  that  in  twenty 
years  the  name  of  Jesus  would  cease  to  be  mentioned  in  a 
religious  way.  Fichte  publicly  asserted  that  in  five  years  there 
would  be  no  more  Christian  religion  and  that  his  generation 
was  corrupt  to  the  marrow.  Arndt  charged  the  leaders  of  the 
time  who  thought  themselves  to  be  giving  men  the  purest  re¬ 
ligion  with  taking  religion  from  them  altogether.  Emphasis 
on  morality  without  regard  to  Christ’s  grace  had  produced 
demoralization.  The  Kantian  categorical  imperative  had  made 
a  complete  fiasco  in  the  life  of  the  German  people.”67 

When  the  situation  seemed  darkest  the  Spirit  of  God  began 
awakening  souls.  John  Wesley  felt  his  heart  strangely  warmed 
in  the  Aldersgate  meeting.  Hans  Nielsen  Hauge,  plowing  on 
a  bright  April  day,  was  suddenly  taken  with  an  uplifting  to 
God  “that  nothing  in  the  world  seemed  worthy  of  further 


Modernist  Antiques 


249 


interest.”  From  that  hour  onward  his  life  was  dedicated  to 
the  re-Christianization  of  the  Norwegian  people.  Schartau  and 
later  Rosenius  did  a  similar  work  for  Sweden.68  James  and 
Robert  Haldane  devoted  their  wealth  and  brilliant  gifts  to  the 
revival  of  the  Christian  life  of  Scotland.  The  Reveil  broke 
out  in  Switzerland  and  France.  Devout  and  powerful  person¬ 
alities  were  raised  up  to  proclaim  the  Gospel  of  grace  in  the 
Protestant  churches  of  the  French  tongue — Cesar  Malan, 
Gaussen,  d’Aubigne,  Ami  Bost,  Felix  Neff  the  apostle  to  the 
high  Alps,  Henri  Pyt  the  apostle  to  the  Pyrenees  and  Bearn, 
de  Gasparin,  Vinet,  Adolph  Monod.  In  Holland  Bilderdyke, 
Da  Costa,  Capadose,  Groen  van  Prinsterer  restored  the  evan¬ 
gelical  church  and  school.  Dr.  A.  Kuyper,  who  took  the  torch 
as  it  fell  from  van  Prinsterer’s  hand,  was  himself  trained  in 
the  Leyden  classroom  of  the  rationalist  Scholten  but  was  con¬ 
verted  to  Christ  through  the  testimony  of  an  humble  woman 
in  the  village  in  which  he  was  parson.69  If  ever  a  man  could 
be  described  as  a  fundamentalist  it  was  Dr.  Kuyper,  the  mighti¬ 
est  and  most  exquisitely  cultivated  intellect  of  nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury  Holland. 

The  three  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  posting  of  the  Theses 
by  Luther  turned  the  attention  of  the  German  clergy  to  the 
great  reformation  doctrine  of  free  grace.  They  began  searching 
the  Scriptures.  Claus  Harms’  Ninety-Five  Theses  for  the  New 
Time  came  as  a  trumpet  peal.  “Reason  is,”  he  cried,  “the  Pope 
of  our  time.  It  has  not  been  sufficiently  investigated  how  it 
happens  that  the  religion  of  reason  was  so  lately  discovered. 
It  is  as  if  Reason  came  belated  into  the  world.”  Dr.  Fosdick 
calls  his  rococo-period  theology  “the  New  Reformation.”  The 
phrase  is  as  old  as  the  theology.  “With  the  idea  of  a  Pro¬ 
gressive  Reformation,  as  the  idea  is  conceived,”  said  Harms 
in  his  third  thesis,  “ Lutheranism  is  reformed  into  heathenism 
and  Christianity  is  reformed  out  of  the  world.”  The  new 
reformation  came  rather  with  the  revival  of  the  Reformation 
doctrines,  the  new  interest  in  the  great  Pauline  affirma¬ 
tions.70 


250 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


These  were  preached  with  power  by  Jaenicke  and  F.  Strauss 
in  Berlin,  by  Rautenberg  in  Hamburg,  by  Boos  and  Gossner  in 
Bavaria,  by  Henhoefer  in  Baden,  by  the  brothers  Hofacker  in 
Stuttgart,  by  Krummacher  in  the  Wuppertal,  by  the  von  Belows 
in  Pommerania.  Men  of  learning  and  spiritual  wisdom  were 
now  to  be  found  in  the  theological  chairs — Neander,  Tholuck, 
Plengstenberg,  Julius  Mueller,  Rothe,  Lange,  Olshausen,  Stier 
and  Luthardt.  J.  C.  G.  Kraft,  professor  in  Erlangen,  was  wont 
to  open  his  lectures  with  prayer  and  a  formal  confession  of  his 
belief  won  through  an  intimate  experience  of  sin  and  grace. 
Tholuck,  Rothe,  and  Stier  owed  their  impulse  to  the  new  life 
to  Baron  von  Kottwitz,  a  converted  worldling,  who  became 
a  sort  of  German  Wilberforce  to  the  slaves  of  poverty  of 
Berlin. 

All  over  Germany  the  breath  of  the  Spirit  moved  men.  Re¬ 
vivals  broke  out  at  the  same  time  and  in  wholly  unrelated  places. 
Among  the  most  notable  was  that  at  Moettiingen  where  J.  C. 
Blumhardt  preached,  accompanied  as  it  was  by  remarkable 
miracles  of  cure  and  exorcism.  To  the  church,  at  Stuttgart, 
where  L.  Hofacker  preached,  people  came  in  streams,  often 
from  long  distances  on  foot.  The  visible  effect  of  his  preaching 
is  described  as  of  wind  billowing  a  field  of  grain.  “My  whole 
purpose  is  to  drive  a  wedge  into  consciences,”  he  said.  “The 
church  has  become  pagan.  It  needs  preaching  that  will  start  it 
out  of  sleep.”  Russworm,  a  converted  modernist  wrote  on  cur¬ 
rent  plans  for  raising  attendance.  “Neither  more  ritual  nor 
better  endowments  nor  greater  intellectual  equipment  of  the 
clergy  can  do  anything  but  only  the  Gospel,  ‘God  so  loved  the 
world.’  ”  He  then  speaks  of  what  the  Gospel  had  done  for 
him. 

“I  thank  my  God  that  the  scales  have  fallen  from  my  eyes, 
that  I  have  come  to  recognize  n^self  as  a  lost  sinner  by  nature 
and  Jesus  Christ  as  the  true  Son  of  God  and  my  Saviour. 
For  forty  years  I  lay  in  darkness  and  unbelief.  I  saw  in  him 
who  says,  ‘I  am  the  first  and  the  last  and  behold  I  am  alive 
for  evermore’  only  a  man  who  deserved  no  more  regard  than 


Modernist  Antiques 


251 


Plato  or  Seneca.  But  with  weeping  heart  I  now  cry,  ‘Forgive 
me,  my  Saviour,  I  knew  not  what  I  did.’  ”71 

With  the  Revival  came  an  outburst  of  joyous  song  as  at 
the  Reformation.  The  Enlightenment  had  emasculated  the 
hymns  of  the  church.  Original  contributions  either  Christian 
or  permanent  in  quality  it  had  none  to  make.  But  the  re¬ 
affirmation  of  the  good  tidings  awakened  the  singers  as  the  sun¬ 
rise  the  birds.  Charles  Wesley,  John  Newton,  Perronet,  H.  W. 
Lyte,  Heber,  Keble,  J.  M.  Neale,  Horatius  Bonar,  Alford,  Sir 
Henry  Baker,  filled  the  English  nineteenth  century  with  joyous 
testimony.  In  Scandinavia  Grundtvig  and  Ingemann  and  Wal¬ 
lin  and  Hartmann  and  Weyse  and  Lindeman  led  the  awakened 
church  in  song;  in  Germany  Gerok  and  Knapp  and  Spitta  and 
Ernst  Moritz  Arndt.  The  mutilated  German  hymns  of  the 
earlier  times  were  restored  through  the  care  of  Bunsen,  Stier, 
and  Claus  Harms. 

And  with  a  revival  of  adoration  went  hand  in  hand  a  revival 
of  good  works.  The  old  Enlightenment  was  strikingly  like  the 
present  Enlightenment  in  its  merely  sentimental  interest  in  hu¬ 
man  suffering.*  It  knew  nothing  of  personal  self-sacrifice  for 
others.  It  talked  with  Schiller  of  “die  Millioneri’  as  its  present- 
day  representatives  of  “the  masses”  but  did  little  for  them, 

*In  summing  up  the  “practical  results  of  the  Enlightenment”  all 
that  Troeltsch  can  find  to  its  credit  are  certain  educational  reforms. 
There  is  a  thoroughly  characteristic  note  in  his  words:  “The  folk 
schools  which  pietism  had  brought  into  being  were  seized  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Enlightenment.” 

Basedow,  the  educational  reformer  of  the  Enlightenment,  was  the 
spiritual  grandfather  of  a  family  of  American  religious  educationalists 
of  truly  Mormon  proportions.  “Human  nature  was  regarded  by  him 
as  a  germinating  seed  in  which  a  good  and  noble  impulse  dwells, 
requiring  only  fostering  care.  A  prime  object  with  him  was  to  build 
chiefly  on  the  conception  of  the  dignity  of  human  nature.”  Here  we 
have  the  Religious  Education  Association  in  ovo.  Miss  Ethel  Cutler, 
a  secretary  of  the  National  Y.  M.  C.  A.  tells  us  that  “the  final  aim 
of  Bible  study,  as  Prof.  Kent  has  said,  is  to  make  efficient  citizens.” 
R.E.  7:707.  This  was  the  Enlightenment’s  mark  of  the  high  calling. 
“Instead  of  hearing  what  the  grace  of  God  can  effect  in  the  soul  people 
heard  what  their  duties  to  their  neighbors  were,  what  would  render 
them  useful  citizens.” 

The  French  Revolution  was  affected  bv  the  liberal  theologians  then 
as  the  Bolshevist  Revolution  in  the  mildly  bourgeois  office  of  the 


252  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

exhausting  itself  in  writing.  “Its  ideal  love  of  Patagonian  and 
Iroquois,”  says  Hagenbach,  “took  the  place  of  practical  love 
of  neighbor.”72  But  with  the  Revival  came  a  great  efflorescence 
of  practical  charity. 

The  English  antislavery  movement  was  the  creation  of  such 
evangelicals  as  Wilberforce,  Clarkson,  Zachary  Macauley  and 
Sir  Thomas  Fowell  Buxton.  Elizabeth  Fry  on  her  conversion 
took  up  the  ministry  of  John  Howard.  The  evangelical  Lord 
Shaftesbury  is  as  prominent  a  figure  in  nineteenth  century  evan- 
gelicism  as  his  sneering  forbear  in  eighteenth  century  free 
thought.  His  labors  for  better  housing,  better  care  of  the  in¬ 
sane  and  factory  reform  put  him  at  the  front  in  the  history 
of  social  reform.  Chalmers  pioneered  district  charity  relief  in 
Glasgow  and  Edinburgh  and  the  Christian  layman  van  der 
Heydt  codified  Chalmers’  experience,  so  to  speak,  in  the  Elber- 
feld  system.  Thomas  Guthrie  worked  for  poor  boys,  for  cripples 
and  in  temperance  reform.  F.  J.  Barnado  abandoned  his  pro¬ 
posed  career  in  foreign  missions  to  spend  his  life  in  the  rescue 
of  waifs.  In  forty  years  59,384  children  passed  through  his 
homes.  George  Muller  in  his  lifetime  cared  for  about  ten 
thousand  children  in  the  Bristol  orphanages.  Quarrier,  the 
Scotch  Barnado,  has  worked  with  great  success  on  the  same 
lines. 

This  type  of  charity  in  Germany  was  pioneered  by  J.  D. 
Falk.  He  describes  himself  in  his  early  years  as  “one  of  those 
who  think  that  when  they  sit  at  the  writing  desk  the  world 
is  helped  thereby.  It  was  a  great  grace  of  God  that  instead  of 
working  me  up  for  writing  paper  He  used  me  as  lint  and  laid 
me  in  the  open  sores  of  the  time.”  Falk  placed  destitute  boys 
in  homes — a  sort  of  German  C.  R.  Brace.  Christian  Heinrich 
Zeller  opened  a  school  for  poor  boys  and  indigent  school  teachers 
at  Beuggen  in  Switzerland.  Over  the  entrance  was  written, 
“Built  on  the  foundation  of  prophets  and  apostles,  Jesus  Christ 

Christian  Century,  and  one  cannot  but  think  with  a  smile  of  Messrs. 
Morrison  and  Willett  when  he  reads  that  the  liberal  parsons  of  the 
Rhineland  were  wont  to  appear  in  Jacobin  caps  in  the  revolutionary 
days. — Tischhauser,  Geschichte  d.  Evang.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  138. 


Modernist  Antiques 


253 


being  the  chief  corner-stone.”  Pestalozzi,  one  of  the  few  philan¬ 
thropists  of  the  Enlightenment,  after  the  failure  of  his  institu¬ 
tion  at  Neuhoff,  visited  him  and  broke  out  with,  “This  is  just 
what  I  •wanted  to  do.” 

Amalie  Sieveking,  educated  in  rationalism,  “laid  all  other 
books  aside  and  gave  herself  wholly  to  the  Bible  and  the  Lord 
let  me  be  found  of  Him.”  She  pioneered  charity  and  nursing 
in  Hamburg.  In  Berlin  Gossner  organized  a  men’s  union  for 
providing  night  watchers  for  the  sick  poor  with  five  thousand 
paying  members  and  thirty-eight  employed  nurses;  also  a  wo¬ 
men’s  union  of  the  same  character  out  of  which  grew  the  Eliza¬ 
beth  Hospital.  Fliedner,  passing  from  rationalism  to  biblical 
Christianity,  founded  the  first  German  union  for  prison  re¬ 
form,  working  especially  among  discharged  women  prisoners. 
The  great  Kaiserswerth  deaconess  enterprise  which  now  num¬ 
bers  its  nurses  by  the  tens  of  thousands,  was  begun  in  1836. 
Fliedner  demanded  personal  religious  experience  as  the  first 
qualification  for  the  deaconess  life.  Wilhelm  Loehe  in  1853 
founded  similar  work  at  Neuendettelsau  in  Bavaria  with  a 
department  for  training  male  nurses  at  Polsingen.  “The  Paris 
Deaconess  Institution,  as  most  of  the  good  works  of  Parisian 
Protestantism,”  says  Georges  Appia,*  “is  related  through  its 
founders  to  the  period  of  the  Revival.  Intense  piety,  love  for 
Christ,  practical  proof  of  this  by  love  for  the  brethren,  especially 
the  disinherited  everywhere — the  atmosphere  which  one 
breathed  in  this  House  was  indeed  that  of  the  Revival.”73 
Besides  its  Motherhouse  with  its  asylums,  houses  of  refuge,  etc., 
it  directs  twelve  other  enterprises  in  Paris  and  the  banlieue  and 
fifteen  in  various  parts  of  France — hospitals,  rest-houses, 
orphanages,  asylums,  etc.  So,  too,  that  at  Ersta  [Stockholm]. 
To  the  evangelist  Rosenius  and  his  evangelical  associates  it 
owed  its  origin.  Begun  in  poverty  and  dependence  on  God  for 
supply  of  actual  necessities  it  has  grown  to  a  noble  constellation 
of  institutions.  Its  sisters  work  all  over  Sweden  as  district 

♦Brother  to  Dr.  L.  Appia,  a  devout  evangelical,  who  with  Henri 
Dunant  founded  the  Red  Cross  Society. 


254 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


nurses,  church  nurses,  nurses  in  poor  houses,  hospitals,  asylums. 
Its  history  is  inseparably  bound  up  with  the  life  of  the  evan¬ 
gelical  saint  Dr.  Bring.74  One  should  also  in  this  connection 
mention  Cathinka  Guldberg  who  trained  in  her  lifetime  1,400 
deaconesses  in  the  Deaconess  Home  in  Christiania;  also  Dr. 
W.  A.  Passavant,  who  in  the  eighteen  forties  transplanted  the 
deaconess  idea  to  Pittsburg  and  himself  collected  from  a  poor 
immigrant  church  an  endowment  of  over  a  million  dollars,  thus 
throwing  absolutely  in  the  shade  the  tenuous  charitable  efforts 
of  the  Enlightenment  in  Boston. 

J.  H.  Wichern,  as  so  many,  received  his  religious  impulse 
from  Baron  von  Kottwitz,  who  spent  and  was  spent  in  estab¬ 
lishing  workshops  for  the  unemployed  in  Berlin.  The  Rauhe 
Haus  was  a  work  of  rescue  and  education  of  boys  carried  on 
in  the  spirit  of  Christ.  This  ministry,  however,  was  the  pro¬ 
logue  to  the  greater  work  of  the  Inner  Mission  of  which 
Wichern  was  the  founder.  This  philanthropy  has  grown  to 
stately  proportions,  embracing  the  greatest  variety  of  institu¬ 
tions — schools,  asylums,  orphanages,  creches,  rescue  homes,  in¬ 
ebriate  homes,  etc.  The  statistics  for  1924  give  the  magnificent 
total  of  3,855  institutions!  German  Evangelicism  in  our  day 
has  given  the  world  the  greatest  philanthropist  of  modern  times 
in  the  person  of  Pastor  Friedrich  von  Bodelschwingh.  Bethel- 
Bielefeld  has  stretched  its  hands  out  in  relief  to  all  forms  of 
sickness  and  misery  although  its  great  special  work  is  among 
epileptics. 

Among  other  developments  of  Bodelschwingh’s  ministry 
has  been  an  extensive  system  of  inns  for  out-of-works 
which  complements  the  Herberge  znr  Heimat  [home  inns] 
founded  by  an  earlier  Christian  of  the  Revival,  Clemens  Perthes 
of  Bonn.  The  French  colony  of  mercy  is  at  La  Force  [Dor¬ 
dogne],  the  Asiles  John  Bost,  a  large  complex  of  homes  for 
epileptics,  consumptives,  etc.  Bost  was  converted  when  going 
up  the  steps  of  the  Paris  Opera  as  distinctly  as  Luther  on  the 
Sancta  Scala  and  one  result  of  his  conversion  was  this  beautiful 
charity  at  La  Force. 


Modernist  Antiques 


255 


Hauge’s  preaching  in  Norway  was  followed  by  a  remarkable 
economic  expansion,  his  followers  founding  mills  and  trading 
concerns  and  other  enterprises  as  he  had  during  his  life  time. 
Oberlin  at  the  same  time  was  putting  piety  into  practise  in 
the  Ban  de  la  Roche,  not  at  all  in  the  meanwhile  losing  his 
interest  in  Bible  societies  and  foreign  missions.  In  Denmark 
Grundtvig  while  fighting  modernism  started  Folk  High  Schools 
for  the  education  of  country  boys,  which  have  proved  extra¬ 
ordinarily  successful.  Hans  Knudsen,  invalided  home  from  his 
mission  in  India,  began  work  among  the  cripples  of  Copenhagen, 
caring  for  their  orthopedic  needs  and  industrial  training.  By 
1886  his  society  had  taken  care  of  more  than  1,500  cripples. 
The  remarkable  parish  relief  system  in  Copenhagen,  the  para¬ 
digm  for  all  such  work,  is  recognized  as  a  fruit  of  the  evan¬ 
gelist  Beck’s  ministry  as  also  Th.  Hansen’s  Stefaniforening  and 
the  Magdalene  Home  of  Thora  Esche.  To  the  last  class  of 
social  wreckage  the  Dutch  pastor  Heldring  devoted  his  life, 
his  Home  at  Steenbeck  in  Holland  being  the  model  for  the 
world.  Josephine  Butler’s  brave  fight  against  the  traffic  in  girls 
should  be  recalled  in  this  connection  and  the  work  of  Mrs. 
Bramwell  Booth.  The  Salvation  Army  with  all  its  Samaritan 
enterprises  is  an  extension  of  Methodism  and  it  was  the  Meth¬ 
odist  revival  which  broke  the  grip  of  the  Enlightenment  on 
England. 

In  1821  Prof.  J.  S.  C.  Schweiger,  a  chemist  of  Halle, 
founded  the  Verein  zur  V erbreitung  von  Naturkenntniss, 
nothing  less  than  a  missionary  society  for  the  teaching  of  mathe¬ 
matics  and  physical  sciences  to  backward  lands  such  as  China, 
Japan,  and  India.  He  wrote  to  Goethe  for  counsel  and  en¬ 
dorsement  and  after  a  year  of  waiting  received  the  following 
reply : 

“Accept  the  assurance  of  my  sincere  sympathy  and  a  contri¬ 
bution  to  your  praiseworthy  undertaking  to  which  I  beg  for 
a  closer  relation.  Commend  me  to  all  connected  with  it  and 
consider  me  as  one  who  will  never  forget  science  and  her 
friends.”  The  contribution  was  two  Friedrich  d’or!  So  much 


256 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


at  least  was  the  monarch  of  the  Enlightenment  ready  to  con¬ 
tribute  for  “mehr  Licht ”  in  darkest  Asia. 

This  missionary  society  is  the  only  one  of  its  kind  that  has 
yet  reported  itself  and  its  life  seems  to  have  been  of  short  dura¬ 
tion.  It  is  indeed  amazing  that  the  modern  world  with  all  its 
resources  of  wealth  and  knowledge  has  never  made  any  syste¬ 
matic  attempt  to  “teach  all  nations.”  So  utterly  lacking,  in  the 
last  analysis,  is  this  modern  world  in  altruism. 

The  liberal  theology  from  1700  down  to  1925  has  shown 
the  same  self-centered  spirit.  Never  has  it  initiated  any  mission 
of  importance, — religious,  educational,  or  medical.*  But  with 
the  evangelical  revival  came  the  greatest  voluntary  movement 
which  the  world  has  yet  seen,  a  movement  which  steadily  grows 
from  decade  to  decade  and  the  final  purpose  of  which  is  to 
put  an  evangelized  world  at  the  feet  of  the  returning  Christ. 
The  Bible  Societies,  the  Church  Missionary  Society,  the  Rhen¬ 
ish,  Basel,  Leipzig,  Berlin,  and  other  German  societies,  the 
American  Board,  the  Societe  Evangelique  de  Paris,  the  great 
Wesleyan  societies,  the  Scotch  missions,  the  London  Missionary 
Society,  the  China  Inland  Mission  and  literally  scores  of  other 
great  organizations  sprang  up  like  good  seed  of  the  kingdom  in 
the  evangelical  springtime  which  followed  eighteenth  century 
rationalism. 

The  old  rationalism  is  under  a  new  name  rearing  its  head 
again.  It  is  aiming  at  nothing  less  than  the  perversion  of  the 
entire  institutional  life  of  American  Christianity.  It  has  up  to 
the  present  worked  quietly  and  its  successes  have  been  both 
notable  and  shameful.  They  may  be  still  more  remarkable  in 
the  near  future.  But  only  for  a  time.  Those  who  are  discon¬ 
certed  and  alarmed  by  this  unlooked-for  development  will  find 
reassurance  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  renascence  which  fol¬ 
lowed  the  eighteenth  century.  Prof.  Troeltsch  has  to  record  that 
“the  English,  Swiss  and  German  revival  period  created  in  the 

*The  Enlightenment  “captured”  the  Danish  Tranquebar  mission  in 
India  from  its  evangelical  founders  but  could  not  secure  missionaries 
to  carry  it  on  and  was  obliged  to  relinquish  it  to  the  Leipzig  mission. 


Modernist  Antiques 


257 


Protestant  churches  a  mighty  counter-current  which  ended  with 
the  complete  expulsion  of  the  Enlightenment  Theology”  (Art. 
Aufklaerung  Realencyclopaedie  f.  Trot .  Theologie  u.  Kirche ). 
So  will  it  be  with  us.  When  the  outlook  seems  most  discourag¬ 
ing  we  are  to  look  for  great  manifestations  of  God’s  power. 

“  .  .  .  O  Wind, 

If  Winter  comes,  can  Spring  be  far  behind?” 

REFERENCES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII 

1.  The  Quest,  9.  2.  Hagenbach,  German  Rationalism,  95.  3.  O.  T.  in  Light, 
188.  4.  Works,  4:463.  5.  Id.  4:328.  6.  Creative  Christianity,  36.  7.  Modern 

Use,  122.  8.  Leland,  Deistical  Writers,  1:153.  9.  The  Fundamental  Beliefs  of 

Christianity,  83.  10.  Modern  Use,  164.  11.  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  215.  12. 

Quoted  in  Sykes,  State  of  the  Controversy,  48,  214.  13.  Life  and  Teachings 

of  Jesus,  236.  14.  Modern  Use,  105.  15.  Age  of  Reason,  39.  16.  Confessions 

of  an  Old  Priest ,  33.  17.  Saintes,  History  of  Rationalism,  331.  18.  Modern 

Use,  185.  19.  Strauss,  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New,  211-213.  20.  Id.  124. 

21.  Id.  160.  22.  Id.  102.  23.  Modem  Use,  105.  24.  Clarke,  Sixty  Years  zvith 

the  Bible,  142.  25.  Letters  of  Certain  Jews,  373.  26.  Strauss,  op.  cit.  165. 

27.  Atlantic,  Aug.,  1924.  28.  Strauss,  op.  cit.  44.  29.  Shaftesbury,  Character - 

istics,  1:18,  19.  30.  Chubb,  Posthumous  Works,  2:40.  31.  Foundations  of 

Christian  Belief,  196.  32.  Shaftesbury,  op.  cit.  3:315.  33.  Strauss,  op.  cit.  9. 

34.  Works,  4:290,  294.  35.  Tischhauser,  Gesch.  d.  Evang.  Kirche  Deutschlands, 
109.  36.  F.  G.  Lewis,  Hozv  the  Bible  Grew,  ix.  37.  Letters  of  Certain  Jews, 
330,  458.  38.  W.  N.  Clarke,  op.  cit.  255.  39.  Annet,  The  Resurrection  of 
Christ  Considered,  72.  40.  Tischhauser,  609.  41.  C.R.  1914:581.  42.  The 

New  Knowledge  and  the  Christian  Faith,  15,  19.  43.  Tischhauser,  347.  44.  Id. 
624-27.  45.  Id.  457,  467,  469,  147-8.  46.  Id.  474.  47.  Id.  157,  476-7.  48.  Id. 

153,  497.  49.  L.  Stephen,  History  of  English  Thought,  1:424.  50.  Rainsford, 

Story  of  a  Varied  Life,  339;  L.  Stephen,  op.  cit.  1:375.  51.  Grundtvig,  Kirkens 
Gjenmaele,  Introduction.  52.  Koch,  Oplysningstid  i  den  Danske  Kirke,  242. 
53.  Tischhauser,  op.  cit.  1 77.  54.  Id.  198-9.  55.  Boston  Herald,  April  1, 

1925.  56.  Tischhauser,  604.  57.  Id.  349,  151,  190,  202,  266.  58.  Chr.  Bang, 
H.  N.  Hauge  og  bans  Samtid.  59.  Beck,  Erindringer  fra  mit  Liv,  11,  16. 
60.  Memoirs  of  James  and  Robert  Haldane,  125-6.  61.  Quoted  in  Hurst,  His¬ 
tory  of  Rationalism,  426;  Tischhauser,  416-17.  62.  Ziegler,  Wilhelmsdorf,  26- 

27.  63.  Ch.  Bang,  H.  N.  Hauge,  passim.  64.  Memoirs  of  J.  and  R.  Haldane, 

234-39.  65.  Id.  400-417.  66.  Tischhauser,  605,  120,  127,  442.  67.  Id.  125-6, 
269.  68.  V.  Sodergren,  Schartau.  69.  Rolfhaus,  Dr.  A.  Kuyper,  20.  70.  Tisch¬ 
hauser,  337,  343.  71.  Id.  393.  72.  German  Rationalism,  189.  73.  Georges 

Aprpia,  2:263,  265.  74.  Minneskrift  t.  Sv.  Diakonissenanstaltens  FemtiSrs 

Jubilaeum. 


APPENDIX 


THE  WILL  AND  THE  FORUM 

Daniel  Sharp  Ford,  publisher  of  the  Youth's  Companion, 
left  by  will  to  the  Boston  Baptist  Social  Union  the  sum  of 
$350,000  for  the  erection  of  a  Baptist  Church  House,  the 
Ford  Building,  with  auditorium;  and  as  much  more  for  city 
mission  work  in  Boston.  A  tablet,  which  every  one  entering 
Ford  Hall  passes,  expresses  in  the  words  of  this  will  Mr.  Ford’s 
“desire  and  hope  that  these  gifts  .  .  .  should  stimulate  the 
religious  interest”  of  the  Social  Union  members  “in  promoting 
the  welfare  of  wage-workers  through  distinctly  Christian 
agencies /' 

What  Mr.  Ford  meant  by  this  is  clear  from  his  activities  in 
life  and  from  the  terms  of  his  will.  He  had  generously  backed 
the  Ruggles  Street  church  in  its  evangelistic  and  philanthropic 
services  to  the  poor  community  in  which  it  was  situated.  His 
will  provided  for  the  continuance  of  these  benefactions  at  the 
same  place  as  long  as  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Rug¬ 
gles  Street  church  “should  believe  in  or  hold  to  the  religious 
tenets  held  by  the  Baptist  denomination  A  chief  purpose  of 
the  bequest  was  to  draw  “Christian  business  men  into  closer 
personal  relation”  with  wage-workers  .  .  .  “in  friendly  asso¬ 
ciation  and  in  helpful  acts  and  above  all  in  seeking  to  bring 
them  to  accept  Christ  and  Christ's  teachings  as  the  guides  of 
their  life."  “To  this  end,”  he  adds,  “I  have  made  these  be¬ 
quests.” 

Under  the  terms  of  this  will  the  Ford  Hall  Forum  was 
instituted  to  which  was  granted  the  free  use  of  Ford  Hall 
auditorium  and  considerable  subsidies  for  payment  of  speakers. 

The  speaker  who  has  appeared  most  frequently  on  this  plat¬ 
form  has  been  Charles  Zeublin.  Mr.  Zeublin  died  recently. 

258 


Appendix 


259 


His  original  Methodism  had  so  far  evaporated  during  his  career 
at  Chicago  University  as  to  leave  him  without  hope  of  a  life 
to  come.  “I  do  not  know  when  my  redeemer  will  live  or  whose 
redeemer  I  may  be  except  in  the  sense  that  every  man  is  our 
redeemer.  .  .  .  The  redemption  of  the  people  will  be  by  means 
of  impersonal  immortality,  the  crux  of  democratic  religion.” 
( The  Religion  of  a  Democrat.)  Dr.  John  Haynes  Holmes,  the 
next  most  frequent  speaker,  is  more  lucid.  His  addresses  are 
aimed,  as  he  tells  us  ( Religion  for  Today),  to  turn  men  “from 
the  old  religion  to  the  new,”  that  is,  away  from  what  Mr. 
Ford  believed  to  what  he  abhorred.  “The  doctrines  .  .  .  which 
make  up  the  content  of  Christian  tradition,”  he  goes  on  to  tell 
us,  “are  simply  not  true.  They  have  all  been  refuted  a  thou¬ 
sand  times.  They  are  ignored  in  our  schools  and  colleges  and 
laughed  at  in  our  newspapers.  .  .  .  The  church  is  disloyal  to 
truth ;  she  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  falsehood  and  deceit. 
.  .  .  God  if  he  is  to  be  found  anywhere  must  be  found  in  the 
heart  and  mind  of  humanit)^,”  47  and  65. 

“What  wonder,”  says  this  forum  star,  “that  there  have  been 
men  who  have  soberly  declared  that  Christianity  has  been  more 
of  a  curse  than  a  blessing  to  the  human  race  and  that  if  every 
church  could  be  closed  today  and  every  pulpit  left  forever  empty 
humanity  would  gain  immeasurably  more  than  she  would  lose,” 

35. 

I  suppose  one  could  hardly  find  a  more  representative  col¬ 
lection  of  anti-Christian  radicals  than  has  appeared  on  the  roster 
of  speakers  at  this  forum  during  the  past  fifteen  years.  The 
free-thinker  Stanton  Coit,  the  unfrocked  Dr.  Crapsey,  President 
Morgan  of  Antioch  College,  Prof.  Schmidt  dismissed  from  the 
Colgate  Baptist  seminary,  the  revolutionary  Bouck  White,  the 
Unitarian  matador  Dr.  Dieffenbach,  rabbis  to  talk  about  the 
Jewishness  of  Jesus  and  the  Bible  as  literature,  Unitarians — 
Cummings,  Rihbany,  Sheer,  and  the  atheist  Cooke.  Even  the 
church-critic  McAffee  has  been  brought  up  from  New  York 
to  answer  the  query,  “Is  religion  failing  in  America?”;  also 
Mr.  Villard,  the  good  friend  of  the  Bolshevists.  Lately  we 


260 


The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 


have  had  Rabbi  Wise  and  his  son,  James  W.  Wise,  the  latter 
to  tell  what  young  people  are  thinking  of  religion.  “Liberal 
Judaism”  explains  this  representative  of  Jewish  unbelief, 
“affirms  unhestitatingly  that  God  does  exist,  that  all  depends  on 
his  existence  and  that  there  is  and  must  be  a  life  after  death. 
And  then  it  wonders  why  it  fails  to  hold  the  youth  of  today 
with  its  teachings .”  One  enthusiastic  Unitarian,  Dr.  Wiers, 
feels  that  the  forum  may  possibly  “mark  the  birth  of  a  new 
religion (Democracy  in  the  Making.) 

However  that  may  be  it  is  surely  impossible  to  find  in 
Mr.  Ford’s  will  or  known  interests  and  religious  views  any¬ 
thing  which  would  justify  the  staging  of  this  troupe  of 
Freigeister. 

THE  MASSACHUSETTS  SUPREME  COURT  AND  THE 

ANDOVER  CASE 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts  has  enjoined  the 
trustees  of  Andover  and  the  president  and  fellows  of  Harvard 
in  a  decision  which  constitutes  a  stinging  rebuke  to  all  who 
have  had  part  in  betraying  Andover  to  Harvard  Unitarianism. 
This  decision  would  seem  to  provide  precedents  for  proceeding 
against  the  perversion  of  the  Daniel  Sharp  Ford  fund. 

“An  owner  of  property,”  says  the  court,  “may  give  it  upon 
trust  to  maintain  and  inculcate  any  doctrine  of  Christianity 
or  to  promote  and  extend  any  particular  Christian  denomination. 
...  The  obligation  is  imposed  upon  the  managers  of  such  a 
charity  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  scheme  of  the  founders.  Those 
who  administer  the  charity  have  no  right  to  vary,  alter,  or 
change  its  plan.  They  must  execute  the  purposes  of  the  founders 
conformably  to  its  true  intent.  Their  ideas  of  expediency  or 
general  utility  in  conducting  the  trust  are  of  no  consequence. 
The  court  in  ascertaining  the  purpose  of  the  founders  of  char¬ 
itable  trusts  and  in  performing  its  duty  to  see  that  they  are  not 
perverted  has  no  concern  with  the  degree  of  public  advantage 
likely  to  flow  from  the  trust  as  founded  as  compared  with  some 
other  more  or  less  analogous  purpose. 


Appendix 


261 


“In  applying  these  principles  to  a  charity  established  for  the 
training  of  ministers  of  religion  manifestly  not  the  slightest 
consideration  can  be  given  to  the  present  prevalence  of  the 
religious  creeds  or  doctrines  to  be  taught  or  to  our  own  beliefs 
concerning  them. 

“An  undenominational  theological  school  was  foreign  to  the 
purpose  of  the  founders  and  alien  to  their  declarations.  .  .  . 
Those  original  donors  were  resolute  in  their  determination  to 
combat  liberal  religious  thought  among  Congregationalists.  .  .  . 
It  is  manifest  under  the  associate  and  additional  statutes  that 
every  Andover  professor  must  believe  sincerely  and  be  con¬ 
scientiously  convinced  of  the  truth  of  these  distinctive  theological 
doctrines.  .  .  .  The  plan  for  closer  affiliation  with  Harvard 
is  not  compatible  with  the  foundation  of  the  Andover  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary. 

“The  Andover  Theological  Seminary  was  established  as 
a  separate,  distinct,  and  independent  theological  school. 
The  instruments  of  gift  which  called  it  into  being  dis¬ 
close  no  express  or  implied  permission  that  it  ever  be  consoli¬ 
dated  with  another  kindred  institution.  .  .  .  The  joining  of 
the  seminary  with  another  institution  to  form  a  non-denom- 
inational  theological  school  is  contrary  to  the  avowed  end  and 
aim  of  the  founders.” 

After  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  under  the  merger 
“no  one  can  be  and  remain  an  Andover  professor  until  appointed 
by  the  authorities  of  Harvard”  the  court  continues: 

“The  independence  of  an  educational  institution  is  gone  when 
its  teachers  must  receive  their  final  appointment  from  some  out¬ 
side  authority.  .  .  .  Doctrinal  and  creedal  requirements  were 
of  the  essence  of  the  purpose  of  the  founders  of  the  Andover 
Seminary.  The  founders  looked  forward  to  no  such  modifica¬ 
tions.  On  the  contrary  the  associate  founders  enjoined  that 
every  article  of  the  creed  ‘forever  remain  entirely  and  identically 
the  same,  without  the  least  alteration.’  .  .  .  These  findings 
cannot  abate  or  qualify  the  emphasis  placed  upon  the  Andover 
Creed  and  the  Westminster  Assembly’s  Shorter  Catechism  in 


262  The  Leaven  of  the  Sadducees 

the  constitution  and  the  associate  statutes  of  the  Andover  Sem¬ 
inary.” 

THE  STUDENT  FELLOWSHIP  FOR  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  SERVICE 

This  organization  runs  back  apparently  to  the  Student  Vol¬ 
unteer  Convention  at  Indianapolis  in  1922  when  a  group  of 
young  moderns  demonstrated  for  new  lines  of  action  in  the 
student  movement.  Its  sponsors  think  of  it  as  enlisting  men  for 
home  activities  as  the  Student  Volunteer  Movement  for  the 
foreign  field.  There  seems,  however,  to  be  little  call  for  the 
organization  and  less  of  weight  back  of  it.  Yet  at  a  conference 
at  Delaware  Water  Gap  in  April,  1924,  it  was  actually  received 
into  association  with  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.,  the 
Student  Volunteer  Movement  and  the  Council  of  the  Church 
Boards  of  Education  in  a  five-fold  “Continuation  Committee.” 

Whether  this  is  but  one  more  Trojan-horse-full  of  modernists 
devised  this  time  to  break  into  the  Student  Volunteer  and  other 
established  organizations  remains  to  be  seen.*  Certainly  its 
organ,  The  Student  Challenge ,  is  calculated  to  awaken  the 
suspicion.  Its  office  is  vis-a-vis  to  that  of  the  Christian  Century 
on  South  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  and  one  notes  names  from 
the  Christian  Century's  staff  as  contributors;  others,  too,  of 
the  same  flavor,  John  Haynes  Holmes,  Glenn  Frank,  Bruno 
Lasker,  H.  van  Loon,  Upton  Sinclair,  Professors  Coe,  Ellwood, 
and  C.  A.  Beard. 

The  literature  the  Student  Fellowship  commended  [“may  be 
secured  from  any  depository  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern”] 
includes  the  writings  of  Coe,  Dewey,  Soares,  Fosdick,  Wig- 
gam’s  New  Decalogue,  Well’s  Outline.  Also  18  volumes  of 
the  Christian  Century  Press  “for  potential  ministers.”  The 
wildest  revolt  literature  (Nietzsche,  Bertrand  Russell,  Lewi- 
sohn,  etc.),  is  pushed  editorially.  The  Unitarians  find  the  organ 
of  the  Fellowship  a  congenial  medium  for  advertising  and  the 
Meadville  Seminary,  under  the  caption  of  The  New  Reforma¬ 
tion,  publishes  a  half  page  of  inducements  [ample  scholarships, 


A  ppendix 


263 


fellowships  for  graduate  study  in  Europe]  to  students  to  cast 
in  their  lot  with  this  Unitarian  institution. 

The  tone  of  the  publication  is  of  a  piece  with  the  literature 
it  touts.  One  editorial  speaks  of  “Well-meaning  adults  prodding 
young  people  into  one  or  another  ‘sacred’  vocation  such  as  the 
ministry,  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  the  foreign  mission  held.  Those 
young  people  who  are  alive  to  the  challenge  of  the  modern 
world  are  quite  likely  to  turn  away  in  disgust  from  the  fervid 
emotionalism  and  musty  religiosity  of  such  efforts.” 

Another  indulges  in  this  blasphemous  banter:  “If  a  skeleton 
is  dug  up  in  Palestine  in  the  near  future  which  apparently  dates 
from  the  first  century  A.  D.  and  someone  supposes  it  to  be 
that  of  Jesus  conclusive  proof  will  be  given  by  measurement 
showing  the  Nordic  conformation  of  the  skull.  ...” 

Such  is  the  organ  of  the  Student  Fellowship  for  Christian 
Life  Service.  Of  the  $18,455  which  have  been  contributed  to 
it  [chiefly  by  denominational  boards  and  friends]  the  students 
themselves  contributed  just  $137.60.  The  “insurgents”  of  the 
Indianapolis  Convention  of  whom  the  modernist  press  wrote 
so  rapturously  do  not  seem  to  take  their  new  “movement” 
very  seriously. 


A  SINECURE  FOR  A  HIGHER  CRITIC,  OR  A  FIFTH  WHEEL 

TO  THE  MISSIONARY  COACH 

This  is  the  Board  of  Missionary  Preparation  which  is  financed  by 
the  chief  missionary  organizations.  It  is  hard  to  learn  just  what  it 
does.  Its  director  is  Dr.  F.  K.  Sanders,  a  literary  associate  of  the 
late  Prof.  Kent  of  Yale.  “The  preparation  of  missionaries”  appears 
to  consist  in  Droviding  them  with  rationalistic  literature.  Thus  among 
the  books  recommended  for  reading  are  such  of  the  critical  old  guard 
as  Kent,  Fowler,  Knudson,  Barton,  Peake,  with  Pratt’s  Religious 
Consciousness ,  Frazer’s  Golden  Bough,  Toy’s  Introduction  to  the  His¬ 
tory  of  Religion,  Buddha  and  Christ  by  the  Unitarian,  J.  E.  Car¬ 
penter,  etc. 

Dr.  Sanders  has  himself  published  handbooks,  “The  Life  and  Re¬ 
ligion  Series,”  presumably  for  the  use  of  young  missionaries.  In  these 
we  get  such  sentences  as: 

“The  Hebrew  prophetic  order  grew  out  of  conditions  very  definitely 
paralleled  in  other  nations  of  the  same  class  and  period.  All  early 
religions  had  some  method  of  getting  the  will  of  the  gods,  partly  by 
the  various  methods  of  necromancy,  partly  through  the  supposedly 


264 


inspired  utterances  or  conclusions  of  those  who  could  throw  them¬ 
selves  into  a  state  of  ecstasy  or  trance.” 

“The  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  [Isaiah,  Amos]  were  limited 
by  this  narrow  theory  (that  Israel  was  a  chosen  nation).  They  do 
not  imagine  Jehovah  as  carrying  out  his  plans  except  by  using  the 
Hebrew  nation  as  his  working  unit.” 

The  notion  of  inspiration  is  no  longer  tenable.  Rather  “the  Hebrews 
discovered  their  own  genius  and  gave  it  play.” 

The  year  1918  Dr.  Sanders  spent  in  agreeable  wanderings  in  Japan 
and  China.  His  mission  was  “to  study  the  peoples  of  the  East”  and 
“to  give  missionaries  an  idea  of  the  plans  and  history  of  the  Board  of 
Missionary  Preparation.”  Nineteen  twenty-four  brought  into  his  life 
a  similarly  delightful  ramble  in  South  America.  Dr.  Sanders  is  also 
a  director  of  the  Committee  of  Reference  and  Counsel  of  the  Foreign 
Missions  Conference. 

The  Missionary  Education  Movement  is  led  by  a  graduate  of  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  the  Rev.  F.  D.  Cogswell.  Of  certain  of  its 
publications  a  modernist  writer,  Miss  Adelaide  T.  Case,  says  [ Liberal 
Christianity  and  Religious  Education,  p.  108]  “The  Missionary  Educa¬ 
tion  Movement’s  recent  volumes  on  home  missions  are  conspicuously 
‘liberal’  in  attitude.” 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 


Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  time  is  specified. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  2-week 
book  kept  overtime;  25  cents  a  day  for  each  over¬ 
night  book. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at  the 
delivery  desk  for  assisstance. 


[fltt 


ism 


Wm 

1  M .. 


<v;-  - ' 


9-48 


War  ARg 


